






a a o« c S'"- 

*sl«* ^ / ; 

* 0 O 



3 o 




r; " * ' ' 

* < 

% % / 

o o^ .:»§& - ^ >' ; «m > ■ *b o x * srfg&t" ^ v* 

^ ■ o J ^ v^Wy 0 

■> N O' -**0, % y J J^ > J %'*°r 

** ^ J * - ** * 

^ <L ' Or 


* ^ 

% *A 


*9- * 

: \* v -AwA;. 'W 
" i^ v ^ - llEPf « <s>% = v 

*'\ A _ '%,s ”'o.i-» a 

' c ° ‘*- b o G°V^« % A 1 . c ° 



* ^ ^ -. 



> o 0 X ." yfeftif A* ^ V ° 

‘flfeS S?®- 

^ \ V X ✓» ^ l v v 

V. •>.•’j 


> A -O ' » ' ■ , V «,V C«v,'' 

* " V S 

^ x0 V' 

^ ^ W¥\5L 

^ ^ <>> c, 

1 V 



«<■ 

c> * 

n r v * o % * 8 ■ 1 * \*' 

A* ,’\;«J* V ^ v *' 

;v c> *= ■' -A ., v c /■ o 

.v^ ^V*SKV^ \ _„ 

* ’*’ o°v^.’ % “ './V;;;*,\'*■'V°v• -:*,%\ u " 

•* ^ > :*®iia:. ++■ $ 



' M •, ^ 




0 ° ^° V °-L~ *#11’' \V 

QV* ^ 1 * 0 t . \ s s 

A "^' v- <? L v '-p . v 

A ^ .(A^r/To ^ V' <v. ^ 

® s lf‘ J 





\ _ ^X» r^« y s Ny^'“ {i < ^ 

“ vV s .., >-. '...’/ , 

y , s *r ^ .O’ ^ X * 0 

y ' ^ 



0 * X ^ A 


* W ; .w - \ 

7/ y * * s s v , a 
0°V ^ 

_ ^ ^ mf/fe, + 'Kp ^ 

^ ikimZ' ^ + 'J~ p> c 

* _ C Aisji 

o \° ^ >• 

> -/>. - ® -.* * 







0 <1 


. , ^ -. B S' -i » , 

''..c' ^ , ,, <", '>,i* A O i 

,> o o' » V* 1 = 

o-i-n, k «o, : 

cA y , '- * pcO O t- 

*■ > j\0 •© 


C- 


v- 


v0 


^ s . , , "*>.'• ; A ’ A 0 '’ r '^/. 

4* t- (g « 'P 
* - (A^^Ai ^ cV 

: - z ~ ( \ 

* / \ -. 




» ^ cr -i 

y 0 « X xV /\ 

V c o w c R , 

<L * 



7 - ’■• v V 

X 1 <^A <f> ^>. / 

^ <* 
o 




^ ^ « > 

S 0 s o > A 0 . 

o > .0 ’ c- Y 

* ,A 

-%• % % - J<A 

A A. 


^ A . 
<* 


^ 0 °c. 



llt <*, ®o. I * .A 'O, '", 

+ o r0‘ S f cV c 0 N c ♦ 

+ ^ 0 ^ &/r???h \ *% / * ^ ' 

- ■< ^ K ' e ^ 



>- 

c^ ^-sy/1 y^zP a v 
C' A- ^ 0,. 

» v *»< “c- v v A•> 

r ^ aV ^ 



^ 1 u / 
A‘ 


* <>•. 


; \° ^ ^ 

A< “ 0° c, ^A- 

.O N 0 ^ ° i * 8 | 

CYf* „ \ * 07 . T /- 


^ .C 


A O' ^ - f C> 

y <v> 














/ 

o 


° <3 <3 

3 .%? 




0 * 


. ''l ' A 0' , , 0 , L* A 

■% - 
-t > c 

» *9 °* * 

V/*JT3 3 *■ »Vff!!'*’,#' 

> <y * Y * 0 /• tf 1 o M ' 

v x- 


<?* 



<\ y o * V * 




X V ** 

O O x 





*- >A 


* <* 




♦ ^ 

r ^V> vV c 
z x 

- S - 3- ° 

^ ^ o # ■ ,. 

^ v 411 1:* *<*1 "* v \* xA c°' Ng ♦ '^b v '** s \<; 

o 


.* -. 
-i c£- ✓ 



* ^ if* ’ 

^ V 

l^SA ;, * r\ _ «. iS 



o- ./v*? 

’•*V%"- v'*V '^"^• fc,, /*'->c.**''-'v^’ * 

- ^ - V .<3^/?^ <* - ,4 "A V - (? 35 * 'P ' ^0?fW 

V « S^v/% l * \v 

<y> ^ o V '7^ 3 ~ j^V ^ * 

;°**;/.< : !v' v *" c p^; : , .;V‘. 

^ <» o ^ v - Jm ^ ^ V v 



■T .-3 s \r °'« 


s ,** 



•>* V " 

O0 

03 ^ * _, v 

.V- ^c. , *%»y Sr* > 

* %v;;y/ ) l, 

> ,CV* ^ ^ * <> , " / - 





<* AA 

* 1 


' •>* x 

o o o' 

« i * 

„ - <3 -7\ 

.0*-,*'*.•/%'*"'*'v<-':,:'33* 0 K0 \<F .* *» 

- y-w^ ° ^ ^ S 

^ VljE&V./% ^ _ 

, "’ **' o^' ';.;%V ' *' ‘/.‘!r*'/%'**' 

^ ^ <&«!//?-> + 1 j\ ^ 

* *a y o 

f ^ ‘ * 55 * ~ 


3v 
y <p. 








, £,///,,,» -v o> •/. - «- „y,v 

c i> 3 ,. A » s o3* ^ y <y . 0 > x0 v ^ c 3 *■ > ' ,> N Lv 

'^C- 11 V V \*'”^ "> 0 .0^ ,'*», % '" \> s'" 

(• <J S( ^ f A» T- (S 5» * v 

'= /' •%**'• * 
././% w; y% ° 

‘ a “ s S ^ V • 8 a ”3^ 41 X a\ o N c "/- 

0 * ' '* vj'® 3 ' 

•>^ «$ “ , +m y o l 

•«* 







^ 7/ / o ft S s ^0 <* y 0 * K 

-O' . 41 <■ 3f- 

<\ ^ o° '' > 

y- n Jjt^/it •/ <p. -js • 

O o x * ^ > 




*°^ ••-V^ipr** 3 ^ 3 

V '» S T.>’ / ‘'o, • *■♦ f, .*'V' X 3"'* oTo’’^ 

V. 3 N u Sk. ^ ® ' ' \ N C 9 ^ K u N, 

^ A 0 V ^ 6 

,o r xy c 



y* c 

✓ s 

aV <P r 

* » 

3 .A r ^ - 

a\ c 0 N °3 
3 *> oSSNv y O 

<. AcVXWrs'Jt s 

■S .y: V 

o oo * 

* o5 ^ * 

»*••/.•%• '" v'V- '* 



%$ 


Kp J* < 


y - aV f 

3- S * __ 

-- * im 

j / 

O * ** j ^ s ^ \6' <* y o * x * \3 O *f, 

^ .• l,, «/^ 4 4 .‘!l'*/ 0 o * 




^. y . 

' X N 3^ v 


’ S V^° u 

, ^ * 0 
-v ^ 

s o ^ 3 

V- 

aA' 



c* *• S 

-o * fl x* x \^ S 

, V ^ 0 \. S 

^ Z' -» , \ 

V- IC3 CS» o ^7-* . 






















THE 


SHARP SPEAR & FLAMING SWORD 

OF 

POLITICAL JUSTICE 


UNSHEATHED AND FEARLESSLY WIELDED IN EXPLAINING 
POLITICAL PRINCIPLES, IN CUTTING UP WHIG AND TORY 
PRANKS, AND ESPECIALLY IN DISCUSSING THE GREAT IRISH 
QUESTIONS OF THE DAY, 


ADDRESSED IN THE FORM OF LETTERS, 

/ 

W 


JOHN BRIGHT, Esq., 

JOHN. S. MILL, Esq., 

RIGHT HON. B. DISRAELI,' 
RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, 
PROFESSOR H. FAWCETT. 


BY 

JOHN SCOT T, 

w 

Author of “Politics for the People,'' Ac., Ac. 


SECON D EDITION. 


LONDON: 

FREDERICK FARRAH, 282, STRAND. 
EDWARD TRUELOYE, 256, HIGH HOLBORN. 
AND ALL BOOKSELLERS. 







% 


/£ 


A. 




PREFACE. 


2 



-—+.- 

One of the primary purposes of the composition and publication 
of the following public Letters, is, to exhibit to general readers 
some interesting examples of the Literary Art of Free Dis¬ 
cussion and of Fearless Criticism, applied by an independent 
British Citizen, to the Parliamentary conduct of great popular 
Statesmen, and to the character of important political measures;— 
to those great public measures which are now engaging national 
attention. Another principal object of the Letters addressed to 
the greatest Statesmen in Britain through the Press, is, to enable 
professional Politicians and practical Legislators who may peruse 
them, to observe and comprehend that, the knowledge of political 
principles and governmental procedure is not now confined within 
the walls of the two Houses of Parliament, but is daily spreading 
more and more, far and wide, while it is gradually becoming more 
reproductive, and, consequently, more efficient for the progressive 
purposes of Liberal legislation. An additional leading aim of 
the following Letters is, to demonstrate the rapid growth of 
Democratic principles, as well as the urgent necessity for their 
practical application to the pressing wants of the present age, 
and more especially to the existing condition of Ireland. And 
while illustrating these purposes, objects, and aims, fully and 
fearlessly, it became necessary to review the past political career, 
as well as to analyze the apparent motives and actual movements of 
some of our leading Statesmen, and to criticise their actions with 
a sincere severity, and a freedom of style,—it is believed,.—never 
before attempted by any public writer,—at least, never displayed 
in Britain, since the days of the famous “ Junius.’ It is highly 
satisfactory to know, that some of our greatest Statesmen are 
happy to think that a brighter day is dawning for Ireland, as 
well as that Justice to this long neglected country is no longer 
the declaration or watchword of a party, but the expression of 
the will of the Empire, founded on a conviction of a sound and 
generous, but no longer exclusive policy. Our greatest Statesmen 
feel there is one question which has a prominent claim upon our 
notice, our care, and our most patient and determined energies,— 
I mean the settlement of the great question of the Irish Church. 
I think that, apart from any difference of opinion that may exist 
among the Bepresentatives of the people, everyone will agree, 
that those who have taken upon themselves the responsibility of 
settling such a question are bound to allow no secondary objects 
to interfere with the progress of that question towards a satisfac¬ 
tory conclusion. All minor questions, I hope, will be separated 
from the struggles of party strife, and, if party contests are 



IV 


PREFACE. 


wished for, it may be that on that one wide field before our 
Statesmen they shall find enough to satisfy the keenest appetite. 
That the Irish Church will be disestablished and disendowed is 
certain, but to what length the disendowment of the Ecclesiastical 
Corporation will be carried is not yet so satisfactorily known. 
The disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Protestant 
Church will form the fourth struggle in which the friends of 
freedom have been busy during the last forty years. It is just 
nearly so long,—for it was in the year 1829,—since the Great 
Man-killer, the Iron Duke, who had baffled the power of the 
wholesale murderer Napoleon,— surrendered at the people’s call, 
and our Roman Catholic fellow-men were freed from the political 
thraldom of ages. A very few years afterwards the Great Lords 
who had ruled the Nation since the days of Dutch William 
were put gently aside. The Nation took,—in a measure,—to ruling 
itself. Again, it was on a winter’s evening, now some twenty- 
three years ago, that the third great change came. Sir Robert 
Peel then rose in the House of the Common men, and, fore 
seeing the doom which was awaiting class legislation, proclaimed, 
that the commerce of the British Islands and their belongings 
was to be thenceforth free. That was the way the first mighty 
shot was fired in the great crowning battle of the grand Free 
Trade struggle. 

The Irish difficulty severely tested and tried this Session, as 
far as it has gone, the talents and temper of political parties, and 
afforded the true Liberals the most important opportunity for 
exerting their proper and powerful influences. So much has 
recently been said about what the people of Ireland do or do not 
demand,—about what would, or would not satisfy them, that it is 
emphatically essential to have a free fearless discussion upon 
Irish questions which shall bring out the whole facts of the case, 
as observed and comprehended by men of all parties. Every 
intelligent reader of British .history must ascribe the principal 
part of the wretchedness of Ireland to the operation of the fero¬ 
cious penal Lavs formerly imposed upon the Roman Catholic 
population of this beautiful country, for the avowed purpose of 
impoverishing them, and keeping them down,—bound fast,—in the 
chains of political degradation. The change from the old system 
to the new belongs to our own times, but the mere removal of 
harsh enactments has not been yet sufficient to enable the people 
of the country to right themselves. The present occasion is ripe 
for action. The British Parliament can no longer refuse to deal 
with the Irish difficulty, nor can Britain afford, in the face of 
Europe, to rest satisfied with the ignoble quackery which has 
been the shame of her legislation. From the reign of Henry II 
to that of Elizabeth, the English hold upon Ireland was a mere 
harry and foray,—a matter of pillage and ravage. Queen Eliza¬ 
beth, or her deputies, set the religious persecutions afoot which 
in one shape or another have lasted till our own time. The 
Tudors crushed the Irish with the mailed hand ; the Stuarts 


PREFACE. 


V 


turned the lawyers loose upon them to back the soldiers; and 
the House of Brunswick passed and upheld many u penal 
statutes” touching the Irish people which are not now pleasant 
reading to a just man. With all these old historic wrongs, Mr. 
Gladstone,— such is the character of his mind,—can feel as 
though he had himself seen the wrong done. Again, there is 
injustice which touches a man’s pocket, and injustice which 
wounds his feelings and saddens his spirit. There is insult as 
well as injury; and, of the two, insult is probably the harder to 
bear. Mr. Gladstone would feel injustice of this kind more 
readily than any other living Statesman, and could, without much 
anxious study, see at once that a man who is wounded in his 
religious feeling is necessarily and gravely hurt. The wrong, 
according to the cant word of the day, may be little more than a 
cc sentimental grievance,” but it is a bitter thing for a man to be 
aggrieved in his Moral Sentiments. The grievance of the Irish 
Church in our own day is mainly one of such a kind. Mr. Glad¬ 
stone’s quick, impulsive nature, though it may be a source of 
weakness to him for certain purposes, is here his strength. Were 
his own religion put to shame, he would feel the shame keenly ; 
and so he can feel for others. The question of the loaves and 
fishes is not the main point at issue when the Irish Church is 
discussed in our day. Time was when they proved a most fruit¬ 
ful source of misery and bloodshed, but that wrong has had 
its remedy. When the Protestant clergy openly divided with 
the Protestant Soil-Lords the fruits of the toils of the Homan 
Catholic peasants,—What wonder that ill-blood and bloodshed 
should follow? To speak but the simple truth, in the last cen¬ 
tury the Protestant clergy in Ireland were too often men of 
dissolute life and griping hand. All that has been changed, but 
the recollection of it remains, and in the mouths of Irishmen it is 
still bitter as gall. The hour has come for dealing with this 
great wrong in a decisive style. If the British people would be 
a united Nation in truth as well as in name, they can afford no 
longer delay. Let any Protestant who still feels a doubt simply 
ask himself,—Would he like to be treated by the Homan Catholics 
as the Homan Catholics are treated by Protestants in Ireland ? 

Neither the Whigs nor the Tories will move in the right 
direction if they can help it, and the impulse to go right will 
most advantageously come from English and Scotch Leaders on 
the Democratic side. If the Irish Question is to be settled in 
our time, there must be such a combination of English and 
Scotch Liberals as to force the subject to a distinct issue, whe¬ 
ther the Whig or Tory faction like it or not. Irish members 
may help most importantly, but the great and grand work of 
rescuing Ireland from chronic anarchy and misery must he done 
for the'Irish people rather than by them. Ireland is misgoverned 
at the present day,—because she is misunderstood. The British 
people are not, however, wedded to injustice, nor are they dis¬ 
posed to patronize it. If the British mind could be rightly and 


vi 


PREFACE. 


persistently appealed to by tlie friends and patriots of Ireland,— 
if the irresistible Logic of Facts could be properly employed by 
the public Press,—the people of Ireland could hopefully look 
forward to a full measure of long-delayed and much-needed 
Justice. More men are wanted in Parliament who will devote 
themselves to this special task of enlightening the people and 
influencing the public Press. There are a few Irish members 
who have done good service in this particular line of duty, but 
their ranks require to be daily strengthened. The Irish people 
should not be indifferent to the grave crisis that is at hand ; for 
their fortune and their future are now at stake; and although 
repeated failure has discouraged them, and although disappoint¬ 
ment has almost crushed hope in their Brains, they should now 
rouse themselves to the grand duties of the hour, and boldly 
accept the challenge flung to them on the one side, and cordially 
embrace the tender of help offered them on the other. Neither 
Englishmen nor Scotchmen can defend the wrong which exists 
in Ireland. If it cannot be defended, let the wrong be made 
right, and let there be an end of the matter. The people of 
England and Scotland shall feel, that, let their forefathers have 
done what they may, the British people of the present day, in 
their own generation, have striven to bring their Irish fellow- 
subjects under the rule of equal law. Let the Tories and the 
Protestant clergy everywhere, take a large view of the question 
now before the Nation. The very nature of their own faith—the 
very name they bear—should, as one might suppose, debar them 
from tyranny of any kind over men’s consciences. The doom of 
the Irish Church is sealed—of that they may be very sure. Let 
them, in place of fighting the battle out to the bitter end, make 
the best terms they can, for otherwise they may be sure there 
will be no mercy or quarter. The change will be sweeping and 
stern. In the days of Roman Catholic Emancipation, of the first 
Reform Bill, of Free Trade, there was ever or always a time 
when the friends of the old state of things might have secured 
good terms. They would not, however, hear of terms, and the 
result was surrender at discretion. They should consider, more¬ 
over, that the Statesman who is proposing this great change is 
eminently distinguished by strong religious feeling, and that he is 
leading religious men. Mr. Gladstone is as much attached as 
any one—more so than most men—to the Church of England. 
He has, however, the intelligence to understand, and the eye to 
see, that her cause cannot be helped by upholding wrong. Again, 
the Irish Church is a source of weakness, not of strength, to the 
Church of England. It has been said that, when this change is 
carried out, there will be just such another with regard to Church 
and State in England. And, no doubt, it will be so when the 
conditions are the same. Church and State would be separated 
in England to-morrow, if the Church represented a bare eighth 
of the population. Whilst the Church represents the people of 
England, she is safe—not an hour longer. Finally, Reformers 


PREFACE. 


VII 


must say, let this change be carried peacefully through, because 
it will repair the wrongs of centuries; because it will unite two 
disunited countries, which have everything to gain from union of 
sentiments as well as of interests ; because it is desired by earnest 
and religious men who would not lightly take in hand such a 
matter, if contrary to the interests of true religion. The change 
may be called “ A New Way to pay Old Debts,” but it is a very 
good way after all, because it rests upon the simple plan of paying 
both principal and interest. 

The Reform Bill will be worth nothing if it does not bring 
new and vital powers into the field, and if it does not place in 
the hands of intelligent men the necessary power to carry out 
the great Democratic measures which are now required for 
Ireland, in spite of the resistance of the obstructive classes. The 
new Reform Bill, if efficiently worked, will give us a few more 
good speakers on the Liberal side, and a good number of voters. 
It is sheer delusion, however, to suppose that the Reform Bill 
which the Tories have granted, places the balance of power in 
the hands of the majority of the people forming the Nation. The 
rotten Boroughs and the Soil-Lord-Ridden Counties will keep 
the minority in the preposterous position of political dictators 
until the Ballot is secured, and the Soil-Lords will only consent 
to part with their present assumed power, when they are seriously 
alarmed at the amount of intelligent determination which the 
mass of the people will be enabled to exhibit. The opposition 
to Parliamentary Reform was very bitter as well as prolonged. 
At one time it took one shape, and at another it assumed a very 
different guise. Both the Whig and Tory factions resorted to 
various devices to delay or thwart the national desire, but the 
resistance to the extension of the Suffrage was not so violent as 
will be the opposition to those consequences of Political Justice 
which Democratic changes in our Constitution render ultimately 
certain. The only way to avert the perils of a prolonged agita¬ 
tion, is, to combine so great a force of public opinion as to alarm 
the great factions. There shall be no termination of trouble 
with Ireland, and there shall be no end of annoyance in England 
and Scotland, if the people are compelled to go through a tedious 
process of battling for measures which Justice, Intelligence, and 
Common Honesty would grant at once. Nothing less than a system 
of complete Justice will remove Irish grievances. If British States¬ 
men are not prepared and cordially determined to grant Complete 
Justice to Ireland, let them suppress not only all remedial pro¬ 
posals, but even every form of political discussion. The wrongs of 
Ireland are now patent to the civilized world; the disaffection of 
the majority of the Irish people is beyond contradiction. British 
intelligence has arrived at the crisis when Statesmen must act, 
or Government must fail; when the true friends of progressive 
improvement must take their stand, and ensure the speedy ap¬ 
plication of the remedies which are as necessary to the security 
of Britain as to the welfare of Ireland. This work, however, 


PREFACE. 


• • • 

Vlll 

cannot be pursued except upon one principle, and that is 
Equality , social and religious, among all classes. There can be 
no real freedom where there is the semblance of sectarian domi¬ 
nation ; there can be no real independence where there is even 
the tolerated theory of ascendancy. The Catholic must be as 
free, as independent, as privileged, as the Protestant. He must 
have the same rights, the same prerogatives, the same social and 
civil honors, as the classes to which the State has heretofore 
accorded undue and undeserved favors; and over the whole 
beautiful land of Ireland the breath of Equal Liberty must pass 
freely, vivifying and fertilizing all it touches, and imparting 
fresh vigor and bloom to the drooping plants that have so long 
waited for its benignant advent. The disestablishment and dis- 
endowment of the Irish Church Corporation will constitute a 
solemn Act of National Equity and Amity, which will be remem¬ 
bered in all time as one of the fairest results of Constitutional 
Government, and as one of the purest pieces of abstract Human 
Right that ever came by legislation. The best Reformers of the 
age do not know that ever yet in the world’s history a. Legislative 
Body gathered to receive and to adopt the proposal of a law so 
splendidly stamped by the spirit of intellectual freedofn ; so rich 
in its repentance for old wrong; so earnest in its purpose to “be 
just and fear not;” so brave, and so progressive, as the measure 
which will disestablish the Irish Church. Churches have been 
established by law ; while by desuetude, by rebellion, by conquest, 
by the progress of opinion, they have been disestablished. But 
there is no precedent for the spectacle of an Ecclesiastical State 
Corporation judged by those who share its creed, sentenced by its 
sympathizers, and solemnly executed and put out of legal existence 
in the name of justice and peace—while words of sincere regret 
shall mingle with the triumph of a great right greatly done. Happy 
the land where such deeds of justice are at last possible, where 
there are Statesmen who have come to understand that religion 
without concord and equity is an empty word. 

Whigs and Tories reckon much upon the Illogical Character 
of British public life, and upon the usual unwillingness of the 
mass of the people to press on for the completion of the Legal 
Recognition of their Political Rights after a partial compromise 
has been conceded. The two great factions think that it will be 
many years before a loud demand springs up for a more equal 
and just distribution of political power, and they fondly fancy the 
present general division will enable them successfully to resist 
organic changes of every kind. There are, however, few of our 
practical Politicians who now labor under the delusion that British 
society has reached a fixed stage, and that the growth of Demo¬ 
cracy is to have no further influence on the character of our legis¬ 
lation, or on the tone of society. British Democracy is a great 
and growing tact, and the cry of Justice for Ireland is no longer 
confined to one side of St. George’s Channel. Not one per cent, 
of Householders who will be Enfranchised bv the new Reform 


PREFACE. ix 

Bill will support a Tory or a Whig policy of dealing with Ire¬ 
land. The determination will be wide-spread and irresistible, 
that no sinister interests of Protestant ascendency or Land-Lord 
domination shall be allowed to stand in the way of securing for 
the Irish people the removal of every grievance which they can 
trace to legislation, or the maintenance of any right to which they 
can morally lay claim. There can be no danger in being just; 
and the more deeply the subject is considered the more necessary 
does it become that all the energies of mind and action in the 
Liberal party should be employed for the satisfactory solution 
of the Irish Church question;—for a judicious attack upon the 
roots of a vicious system, where vast sums are absorbed by 
grandees and do-nothings, for which there is not the shadow of 
excuse or justification. The question of the Irish State Church , 
however, is of great magnitude, and it has so many ramifications 
that the utmost caution is required in dealing with it, so as to avoid 
causing a new grievance whilst remedying the old one. The in¬ 
telligence of the Nation has, however, pronounced it an institution 
damaging to the cause it professes to serve, and fatal to that 
mutual good-will and cordial co-operation which ought to subsist 
between Ireland and the Legislature of the United British 
Queendom. It is plainly the duty of Parliament to investigate 
the whole subject in a calm, candid, and judicial spirit. The 
time has happily passed away when Statutes merely embodied the 
absolute will of the minority,—when National legislation simply 
meant the right of might. 

A conflict of parties is interesting when it involves either 
practical legislation or the progress of ideas; but when it consists 
in a mere war of words, exercising no control over events, it is 
neither exciting to the public nor creditable to the resisting faction. 
A minority may often render excellent service, even in defeat; 
but, to do so, it must have Justice on its side, and contribute to the 
enlightenment of the Nation if it cannot modify the immediate 
course of events. Protestant domination, enforced by law, has 
been tried for generations in Ireland, and has completely failed 
in weakening the adhesion of the mass of the Irish people to the 
Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, it has been the obvious cause 
why Irish Catholics have been less liberal than the educated Ro¬ 
manists of France or Italy. We are plainly on the eve of great 
changes in the organization of Churches. The principle of equality 
is about to replace that of sectarian domination. This victory 
of liberty will be a very severe blow to Sectarianism. Nothing 
benefits a sect so much as persecution that stops short of its ex¬ 
tirpation. The Irish Roman Catholic will gain in social comfort, 
but lose in power, by the removal of a grievance, and the priests 
will be less to the people when they are no longer associated in 
their minds with the claims of nationality or the redress of politi¬ 
cal wrongs. After the Church question comes the Land question, 
by far the most important one of the two. English dealing with 
Ireland for many centuries was founded upon confiscation, and it 


PREFACE. 


is no wonder that the Irish people have never consented to me¬ 
thods of land-owning forced upon them by conquest. Up to a 
very recent period successive British Governments did all in 
their power to excite hostility between their own supporters and 
the mass of the Irish people. In the days of Edward III an 
Act of Parliament was actually passed with the avowed object of 
preventing the growth of goodwill between the two parties by 
intermarriages, and the employment of foster nurses, both of 
which were forbidden, and up to the time of Catholic Emancipa¬ 
tion the same spirit animated successive Governments. Our task 
is to reverse all the effects of bad legislation without injustice to 
any party. If our law has wTongfully given something like 
absolute ownership to Soil-Lords who were only entitled to a 
much more limited ownership, we must pay for what w r e ask them 
to surrender. The majority of the Irish people are entitled to a 
prevailing voice in the settlement of local concerns. Where 
equitable social customs have been maintained, as in Ulster, 
shooting Soil-Lords or their agents is as rare as in either England 
or Scotland. The Parliament that shows itself competent to 
deal with the Irish Church, will, in due time, be fit to settle the 
relations of Soil-Lord and Tenant. Coercion has been tried in 
Ireland far too long, and the people must be pacified by giving 
them, through the Imperial Parliament, all the equitable benefits 
they would seek from a local legislature, if the Legislative Union 
should be repealed. 

If the people of Ireland ■were wise enough to sacrifice their 
religious dissentions and Political differences on the altar of their 
common country, and to demand as one man the Legal Recogni¬ 
tion of their Rights by their rulers, their voice would soon be 
heard, their grievances w r ould be speedily redressed, their wants 
would be supplied, and their just demands granted. Ireland is 
naturally blessed with a rich soil, a mild and healthy climate, 
ample resources for industry in Agriculture, Commerce, and 
Manufactures, and inhabited by a population equal in physical, 
intellectual, and moral qualifications to Englishmen and Scotch¬ 
men ; and yet, with a fertile soil, a thrifty and moral people, 
Ireland is one of the poorest and most wretched of the Nations 
of Europe. An average emigration of 70,000 annually is a sad 
portent in social history, and the inevitable result of a vicious 
Land-Code and of the clearance system. If our British States¬ 
men and Soil-Lords would contrive to keep the people at home, 
by giving them adequate employment and equitable remunera¬ 
tion, Ireland w T ould soon have a different state of things. Mil¬ 
lions of acres of unreclaimed land, rivers and lakes admirably 
suited for internal commerce, unworked mines, neglected manu¬ 
factures, commodious harbors, in which, with a few exceptions, 
a trading vessel is seldom seen,—form a wide field of enterprise 
for Irishmen, many of whom have abundance of gold lying idle in 
banks,—a precious metal, which, although it can neither feed nor 
clothe human beings itself, is yet almost universally looked upon 


PREFACE. 


XI 


as the principal representative of real wealth, and, at the same 
time, the best measurer of all actual values. While Statesmen 
and the public Press should steadfastly and earnestly advocate 
the development of Irish industrial resources, there are three 
great questions,—the settlement of which is of paramount im¬ 
portance to the British public,—which should constantly engage 
their best attention. Till the Church Establishment is abo¬ 
lished, and the temporalities converted to useful and National 
purposes; till the Relations between Soil-Lord and Tenant are 
satisfactorily adjusted ; till secular Education is placed on such a 
footing as to meet the wants and wishes of the great majority 
of the population of Ireland,—in a word, till these three great 
questions are finally settled on the broad principle of Equal 
Justice to all,—Ireland can never expect to be a peaceful, con¬ 
tented, and happy country. These are the canker-worms that 
prey upon the vitals of the Irish Nation,—that destroy all social 
union, that impede the physical, intellectual, moral, and poli¬ 
tical progress of the population. It is high time that the voice 
of the majority of the people of Ireland should be heard. It 
is impossible to calculate the benefits that will flow from the 
annihilation of the State Church Corporation. The removal of 
this monster grievance will be the first step towards the pacifica¬ 
tion and prosperity of Ireland. It will break down the barriers 
which at present divide Sect from Sect. It will enable men to 
meet on a common platform, and consult for their common 
interests. It will substitute peace for strife, and brotherly love 
for social discord; and it will bring into vigorous life those great 
principles of freedom and equality which are the bulwarks of 
human happiness. The Irish people ought instinctively to know 
and appreciate these profound Truths, and they should rouse 
themselves from their lethargy, unite with the advanced people 
of England and Scotland, and strike a great moral blow for their 
own rights. The days of government for the sake of either the 
Whig or Tory party are passed away, and the Nation must be 
ruled by the majority of the people, for the interests of the people. 
If we wish for the political growth of our Nation, we must frankly 
accept the principle that the majority ought to rule, and that any 
contrivances which give any sort of minorities any undue power, 
are to be condemned and uprooted. Upon the all-important 
question of the pressing wants of Ireland, the national voice is not 
for this or for that Statesman, not for this or for that party even, 
but for the Bight, the sufficient, and the remedial measures. 
What the Nation wants, and must have, is not the scheme of any 
particular section of politicians, but a course of action as regards 
the grievances of Ireland,—and, above all, as regards the burden 
and insult of an alien Church,—which will satisfy Ireland, and 
so far make her reconciled. 

The Irish archbishops and bishops are in a very serious state 
of mind. The billows are rising, and they see the prospect of 
being submerged in the waves of public opinion. It is not a 


XII 


PREFACE. 


pleasant process, to be disestablished and disendowed; for it 
seems to mean that you are to be deprived of all the consideration 
and the prestige which law and the instincts of society accord to 
Ecclesiastical rank, and that you are to die, no priest of yours 
succeeding ; whilst, if you live, you may be, “ like the last rose 
of summer, left blooming alone,'’ without another bishop to keep 
you in countenance. But the Irish bishops never discuss how 
Protestant principles are to be extended and diffused amidst a Ca¬ 
tholic population; now, however, that the incomes of the priesthood 
are in danger, they earnestly invoke the aid of the State in order 
that they may defeat the passing of any measure calculated to 
end a scandal to religion as well as to political equity. It is 
this principle of political equity which the bishops cannot com¬ 
prehend. Toleration they can understand, for they have lived 
comfortably upon it for nearly seventy years; nor are they 
strongly disposed to act very harshly towards Catholics who pay 
the rent-charge and go regularly to their own priest. But that 
the Catholic, in order to make himself the equal of the Protestant 
farmer, should be released from payments to the Protestant 
Church, merely to assert a principle of equality, is what bishops 
never can be expected to comprehend. And here is that weak¬ 
ness which is the vice of an established religion—it has no sym¬ 
pathy with the people. The order of the priesthood, set apart, 
remains apart ; and, in times of active political thought, takes 
refuge in old traditional ideas unsuited to the age. An established 
religion is only a species of Ecclesiastical aristocracy ; and, as a 
consequence, it has been associated with the other aristocracy, 
whose acts religion is called upon to bless. The bishops, of course, 
choose to think, and the clergy, who hope to be bishops, are ready 
to believe, that if they cease to be connected with the State, the 
State will be given over to his Infernal Highness, the Evil One. 
Of a free church, the bishops and clergy have no idea, and no 
prospect, because they have never thought of the people who 
alone can make a Church, and they fear the people think little of 
them. It is not unsatisfactory, however, to see the bishops at sea 
without rudder or compass, for it shows how utterly helpless and 
hopeless they are; and yet these are the men by whom Faith, 
Hope, and Charity are professionally preached, whilst they them¬ 
selves exhibit not any of the qualities of the trustfulness and 
gentleness which give moral life to humanity. If, to spite the 
Voluntaries, the Irish Protestants should happen to go forth with 
nothing in their purses and without shoes to their feet, without 
State robes, naked and yet not ashamed—then let it be so. It 
would be the bitter penance for the way in which thev have 
performed their mission. For, as Mr. Bright lately said, the 
State Church has made Ireland not the most Protestant, but the 
most Catholic ; and not only the most Catholic, but the “ most 
Homan,” country in Europe. 

Genuine Reformers have never given much weight to the 
boasts of the Irish Protestants that they were the best, bravest. 


PREFACE. 


xm 

most industrious, and most intelligent population on the face of 
the earth; but Liberal Reformers did believe that, in presence 
ol a great political crisis, they would exhibit more resolution and 
readiness of resource, greater real firmness and less futile vaunt¬ 
ing. They still utter the old and rather toothless defiance, ff No 
surrender !” but what does it mean? “ No surrender”of what? 
They have enjoyed certain exceptional privileges of lordship and 
titles—will they refuse to surrender these? Will the clerical 
successor to any one of the “ life-interest clergy” retain perforce 
the church, the parsonage, and glebe? What, then, is the 
meaning of “ No surrender ?” When uttered by the brave men 
of Derry behind their gates, it meant much; and, if a Roman 
Catholic King besieged Derry again, it might once more be 
relevant; but when the men descended from the attacked of that 
day are simply deprived of privileges and moneys which they 
have long monopolized, the old watchword of mere resistance is 
singularly out of' place. The Protestants of Ireland are a mixed 
body, about one-half' of whom are Anglicans ; the remainder 
being Presbyterians and other Dissenters. Taking these bodies 
collectively, it is beyond doubt that by them the North has been 
made the great seat of Irish industry, and a striking monument 
of Irish commercial success. But when we deal with the Angli¬ 
can moiety, we deal with a population of about 700,000, a large 
proportion of whom are landlords, merchants, and professional 
men, who have fattened for years on the advantages of ascend¬ 
ancy. Since 1838 there has been a lull in Irish anti-Church 
controversy. Appeased by the partial settlement of that year, 
the hostility of the Roman Catholic community went to sleep, or 
was diverted to Municipal Reform, Repeal, and Tenant-right 
agitations. During that lucid interval the earnest Protestants 
of Ireland might have done wonders for the internal reformation 
of their Church and in the judicious surrender of their surplus 
wealth. They saw sinecures abound. They observed one parish 
supporting an absentee rector, while another was compelled to 
starve an overworked curate. There were cathedral dignitaries 
without cathedrals, archdeacons who had not even “ archidiaconal 
functions” to perform, and well-paid perpetual curates destitute 
of cures. Nobody stirred to call for the redress of these anomalies 
and wrongs. The total incomes of the Church were obviously 
beyond its own needs, and yet they were never applied to any¬ 
thing but the personal support of the Bishops and incumbents. 
For carrying on the work of trying to “ convert” some Roman 
Catholics in the Far West, the Irish State Church propagandists 
relied on English liberality, and on matrimonial match-making 
Bazaars in the North of Ireland. They saw another Protestant 
denomination—the Presbyterian clergy—starving on a pittance 
of £40,000 a-year, while for their ministrations to a flock but 
one-fourth more numerous, the Episcopalians enjoyed about 
£800,000 a-year, or twenty times the amount begrudged to their 

neighbors. Yet no minister or member of the State Church 
© 


XIV 


PREFACE. 


ever said, or thought of saying, “ Let us give out of our abundance 
to our Protestant brethren of other sects.” Very small conces¬ 
sions of that kind, made years ago by the Anglican clergy and 
laity of Ireland, would have appeased polemical rancor and 
secured them in the safe enjoyment of the residue of their wealth ; 
for nations do not always act quite logically, and anomalous com¬ 
promises are sometimes wonderfully lucky in their effects. But 
the Irish Church, strong, as it thought, by virtue of English “ No 
Popery” feeling, disdained all charity, all compromise. It treated 
with equal contempt the Presbyterian clergy and the Catholics. 
If the Roman Catholics and Protestants of Ireland should unite 
in political and public affairs, general legislation for the Emerald 
Isle will become as easy as it now is for Scotland. The Irish 
Nation will no longer be a monster with two voices—one cursing 
and the other begging—but will rise and speak as a single man 
on all questions which affect the welfare of the island. If, indeed, 
Irish Protestants were so indignant that with one accord they 
rushed from churches, parsonages, and glebes, shaking the dust 
off their feet, and cursing the deceiving and deserting State, there 
would be a certain spirit and self-denial in the stampede. The 
Free Church of Scotland originated in that way, on much lighter 
provocation. But the Irish Church is not equal to anything like 
that heroic height. It has been too long swaddled in State clothes 
to walk off without notice and alone. Its limbs are half crippled, 
not from congenital disease, but through constant leaning on the 
State crutch. Reformers must still believe that, notwithstanding 
all the bravado and sulky inaction now displayed in Ireland, the 
Church, associated so long with cruel persecution, military terror, 
social disorder, and centuries of crime, will come to the British 
Parliament no longer “ clothed” with State robes, but “ in its 
right mind ;” and will tacitly confess its “ defeat of fame.” 

Is not the grievance too time-honored to need much further 
debate and deliberation? Nor is the grievance known merely 
within our British boundaries; it is freely discussed on the Con¬ 
tinent ; and at the moment when Britain’s greatest Statesman is 
bringing forward a measure to redress the wrongs of ages, there is 
a special interest in recalling what Italy’s greatest Statesman 
thought on the matter. It is now a quarter of a century since 
Cavour summed up Irish history by asserting that the supre¬ 
macy of a Church odious to the majority of the people was the 
chief evil of Ireland. He saw clearly, and told us frankly, that 
our forefathers had worked grievous wrong in Ireland. Besides, 
it must not be forgotten that the persecution of the Roman Catho¬ 
lics in Ireland ran hand-in-hand with the struggle of the banished 
Stuarts to win back the crown of the British islands. To the 
poor Irish, the Stuarts had been hard task-masters, like that 
second Pharaoh ; but the bondsmen were ever held to be on the 
Stuart side. In the stern death-grip at the Boyne, much 
Roman Catholic blood had been poured out like water; but the 
sympathies of the people went with the old Kings and the old 


PREFACE. 


XV 


Faith. It was a bad business, however ; so let us take Cavour’s 
excuse of our forefathers just for what it is worth. For them the 
excuse may serve, but not for us. We live under the light of 
clearer thought. We know that we incur heinous guilt in using 
the name of the Almighty as a ground for doing wrong to His 
children. We know what a world of wickedness, of self-seeking, 
of petty hatred, is mixed up with religious persecution. But, 
meanwhile, we must keep to the point; and the point just now is, 
that the Irish people should be allowed to worship their Maker 
in their own way, without let or hindrance from any man. So long 
as the faith of the huge mass of the Irish people is branded with 
the mark of dishonor, so long will you never see a peaceful or con¬ 
tented people on this side of St. George’s Channel. Let us, then, 
take away all reproach from the British Parliament and the 
British name in Ireland; let us do justice to the Emerald Isle— 
and, if you will, even more than justice ; let Ireland be known as 
the country in all Europe that is governed most wisely, most 
mercifully; and when Mr. Gladstone’s proposals shall become 
law, we shall not have much more to do. There is very little in¬ 
telligence, wisdom, or truth in the terrible hubbub raised by 
those nervous bigots who tell us there will be no peace in Ireland 
until the “ Have-nots” have cut the throats of the “ Haves” and 
seized on their lands. The forefathers of most of us have been 
knocked on the head by somebody or other; and if this sort of 
thing is to be begun, let everybody kill everybody, and there will 
be a little peace—but not till then. Such, however, is not the 
course of human affairs. Let us do justice,—that is, practically 
apply the principles of Justice to all the arrangements of so¬ 
ciety,—and we may with some solid confidence leave ultimate 
results in higher hands. 


THE AUTHOR. 


C 0 N T E N T S. 











LETTERS, ADDRESSED THROUGH THE PRESS, TO THE GREATEST 

STATESMEN IN BRITAIN. 


Preface, 


LETTER 

I. To John Bright, Esq., M.P., 


II. 


Pages 
iii—xv 


III. ,, John S. Mill, Esq., M.P., .. 

I\. ,, ,, ,, . • • • • • 

V. „ the Right Hon. B. Disraeli, Prime Minister of Britain, 
VI. „ ,, ,, ,, , j • • 

VTT 

v J - L * >> >> >j »> »i • • 

VIII 

y ,, ,, ,, ,, . 

IX. ,, John Bright, Esq., M.P., 

X. ,, the Right Hon. B. Disraeli, Prime Minister of Britain, 
XI. ,, John S. Mill, Esq., M.P., 

XII. ,, the Right Hon. B. Disraeli, Prime Minister of Britain, 

XIII. ,, John Bright, Esq., M.P., 

XIV. ,, the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, .. 

XV. ,, Professor H. Fawcett, M.P., 

XVI. ,, the Right Hon. B. Disraeli, Prime Minister of Britain, 
XVIL „ John S. Mill, Esq., M.P., 

General Concluding Remarks, &c., 


1 - 

7- 

15- 

21 - 

44- 

63- 

100 - 

155- 

187- 

194- 

204- 

215- 

226- 

237- 

251- 

254- 

262- 

264 


-6 

-15 

-21 

-44 

-63 

-100 

-155 

-186 

-194 

-203 

-215 

-226 

-237 

-251 

-254 

-261 

-263 

266 





THE SHARP SPEAK & FLAMING SWOKD 

OF 

POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, &c. 

- ♦- 

LETTER I. 

Belfast, 59, Victoria Terrace, 
February 14 th , 1868. 

John Bright, Esq., M.P. 

Dear Sir, —In the House of the Common men last Thursday 
evening Mr. Disraeli explained the salient features of the Bill devised 
by the Government to provide a satisfactory tribunal for the trial of 
controverted elections, and to furnish a more efficacious mode of sup¬ 
pressing bribery and corruption. I think with you that the Ballot 
would be an almost infallible specific. 

For some weeks past,—probably, I may say, for months,—Mr. 
Disraeli has virtually acted as the head of the Government; since, 
although Lord Derby has not avoided the inevitable duties and respon¬ 
sibilities of his office, it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who has 
been held answerable in Parliament, and the policy of the Ministry is 
mainly imputed to his leadership. In that respect the current week as 
little differs from last week, or last month, as it probably will from 
next week. I am simply looking forward to probabilities, without 
reference to any fixed date. Nor would the resignation of the chief 
office in the State (which may be probably soon arranged so as to 
excite the greatest possible Sensation , and delay the meditated Irish 
debate until some share of the intense interest felt in it may subside) 
necessarily imply a complete close to Lord Derby’s political career. 
Older men than he,—the iron Duke of Wellington, for instance, and 
Lord Lansdowne, —have done the State much service as Ministers 
without portfolios, or as unofficial advisers of the Crown ; and Lord 
Russell, once Lord Derby’s colleague and friend, and more recently 
his rival, has indicated in his Irish pamphlet, that he readily yields the 
front place to a younger man. The state of Lord Derby’s health, and 
the important character of the business that must come before Parlia¬ 
ment during the present Session, would appear to necessitate immediate 
changes in the Cabinet, — about which speculation has been of late 
extremely rife. Even if the Great Aristocratic Tory Premier had been 
in a more vigorous condition, a purely Tory Administration must soon 
have come to an end, and the question of what sort of a Cabinet can 
succeed in maintaining office cannot be finally settled, until the new 
registers are in operation, and the first Reformed Parliament meets. 
The Irish difficulty is the one which will most severely test and try this 
Session the temper of political parties, and offers to the true Liberal 
section the most important opportunity for exerting a powerful influence 
which they have had for many years. The two aristocratic factions 
would, no doubt, be glad to make up their quarrels, if they saw their 
way to a combination which would indefinitely postpone all far-going 
measures, and leave the Nation to jog on in the old ruts. On both 



4 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


sides there are, as you well know, men who will not or cannot move 
with the progress of the times,—gouty-minded individuals, who will 
operate as a dead weight, or a testy obstruction ; hut both sides, 
likewise, have members of more discretion, who will give up resistance 
as soon as they are convinced that it is vain. 

Ireland may he made this Session a test for politicians. Those 
who will boldly attack the “Land System,’' and the “ State Church,” 
may he relied upon for other measures of a really Liberal description, 
while those who cannot he made to assail Soil-Lordism in Ireland will 
be found very poor Reformers in many other directions. For some 
time past the organs of that section of the rich middle class which is 
systematically opposed to all organic and beneficial change, have never 
lost an opportunity of endeavoring to weaken your great influence, or 
of assailing any public man of importance who has effectually sup¬ 
ported you in proposing to originate a class of yeomen proprietors 
of Irish soil. The Liberals of the Nation have been accustomed 
to witness a similar policy for many years past, as in the silly 
circles of the fashionable world Liberal opinions have not flourished, 
and no small portion of drawingroom and Club influence has been 
systematically exerted on the meanest and most ignorant side of every 
question that has been in dispute. The principal vice of the British 
system has been, that a large mass of wealth and conventional respect¬ 
ability has perpetually stood between the mass of the people and any 
good thing that great statesmen or profound thinkers might devise. 
The Reform Bill will be worth nothing if it does not bring new and 
vital powers into the field, and if it does not place in the hands of 
intelligent men the power to carry out great measures in spite of the 
obstructive classes. What the cleverer sort of untrustworthy politi¬ 
cians want may be seen from the address which Mr. Lowe has just 
issued to the graduates of the London University, who will be electors 
under Lord Derby’s Reform Bill. This peculiar gentleman pretends 
to think that more really Liberal and enlightened measures might have, 
been obtained without the new Reform Bill than with it, but he is 
willing to accommodate himself to circumstances, and make the best 
of a progress which he could not prevent. After professing a few 
intelligent opinions, he comes to the Irish questions, and consents to 
abandon and abolish the Irish State Church;—well done Mr. Lowe;— 
but he thinks the social and economical evils of the country “ cannot 
be remedied, and may easily be aggravated, by legislative interference 
with contracts between private parties acting with full knowledge.” 
Circumstances may easily squeeze a politician of the Lowe type into a 
very different mode of explaining “ Tenant Right,” or of alluding to 
the plans which much better men have put forward for dealing with 
Irish land; but Mr. Lowe stands forward as a specimen of the sort of 
tool or implement which the aristocratic factions are glad to use, as 
they tried to use him last Session to obstruct Reform. They were, 
however, not very lucky in their choice of an agent, or in the character 
of his advocacy, which damaged them beautifully; but it is worth while, 
as one of the signs of the times, to note what he is now about. Lord 
Stanley is a politician of a very different character and position. He 
is not an unscrupulous political adventurer, but the heir of a peerage 
and of a great estate,—one of our hereditary rulers and a prospective 
possessor of a vast tract of the Nation’s public property. His intelli¬ 
gence pulls him one way and his position or artificial nobility drags 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UK SHEATHED, ETC. - 5 

him in another. As regards the Irish land question, he will be Tory 
up to the point of defeat; hut if he sees that Liberal opinions must 
triumph, he will rather go with them than be left behind. What Mr. 
Disraeli really thinks at present upon public questions it is very diffi¬ 
cult to say. He began as a rampant Democrat, and turned Tory to 
get on. He always looks upon political life as a game to be won, 
rather than as a duty to be performed. No doubt he is a higher stamp 
of man than Mr. Lowe, but he has no conception of devotion to prin¬ 
ciples from honest conviction that they are just and true. He is, 
however, more squeezable than Lord Stanley, because he is not clogged 
by family ties. 

On the Whig side there are statesmen amenable to Liberal pressure. 
The Duke of Argyle, for example, has enough sense to shape his course 
so as to accord with a strong popular current; and Lords Clarendon 
and Granville, though no friends to real Reform, would bend to 
circumstances rather than be left out. Practically, the composition of 
a strong Cabinet and the position of two great factions will depend 
upon the extent to which the true Liberals will combine. If they make 
themselves strong by cordial union, they can carry Mr. Gladstone with 
them, and that should be their special aim. The new Reform Bill, will, 
if decently worked, give us a few more good speakers on the Liberal 
side, and a dozen or two more voters. Already with yourself, Mill, 
Fawcett, Forster, and a few more who might be named, the true 
Liberal party have the balance of debating power in their hands ; and 
whenever Mr. Gladstone joins the true Liberals they will be irresistible 
in argument, however they may be temporarily out-voted by factious 
combinations. You have rendered enormous service by taking the lead 
in Irish questions. In the main, your opinions on those subjects are 
shared by all the philosophical Liberals, as well as by the rank and file 
of Democracy, and it ought to be quite practicable to make such a 
combination of English, Irish, and Scotch Liberals as to negociate 
effectively with the aristocratic factions, who will still retain a most 
unjust and unconstitutional amount of power. The Liberals should 
organize themselves forthwith into a party with a definite policy, the 
foremost article of which should be to insist upon a Democratic settle¬ 
ment of the Irish questions without delay. A determination to break 
up any Cabinet that will not agree to the removal of the Irish State 
Church, and to measures for the establishment of a yeomanry pro¬ 
prietary, should be the key-note of this performance. If this victory is 
won, not only will better "days soon come for Ireland, but power will 
have been gained for an host of English and Scotch Reforms. The 
change from aristocratic to democratic in Britain requires good faith 
and boldness to make it- safe. If beneficial measures are promptly 
passed, the educated classes in Britain and the owners of property will 
be in harmony with the masses, and our social system will be safe; 
but if delay and disappointment are permitted to follow what is called 
Parliamentary Reform, then it needs no remarkable powers of prophecy 
to predict that serious perils will supervene. The people are justified 
in the belief that a great advance in national prosperity may be speedily 
attained by establishing a National Government in the place of the 
class domination under which Britain has struggled so long, and for 
which she has paid the tremendous price of the most enormous debt in 
the world, the delay of Education, and a crop of pauperism such as no 
other rich and civilized country can show. 


6 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


The people forming the Nation cannot expect the great families 
now holding the public property of the State,—the national lands,—to 
consult together how they may destroy their own pernicious influence. 
If they consult at all, it will be how to sustain it as long as possible in 
opposition to the spirit of the age. An artificial aristocracy takes the 
leading places; but it never leads in any onward march. Therefore, 
only temporary and slight importance can be attached to any imme¬ 
diate arrangement consequent upon Lord Derby’s incapacity to con¬ 
tinue an active life. The Liberals can, if they are judicious, take 
advantage of the difficulties of the two great factions, and lay down 
conditions on which alone office can be held. Earl Russell will, no 
doubt, follow his usual course of talking to some extent liberally out of 
office ; but it is time to bid him a respectful farewell, with thanks for 
any past service, and a polite refusal to place him again in power. 
Younger and more vigorous men are needed in transition times, and 
his inveterate aristocratic assumptions and insolent conceit are passing 
out of date. Temporarily, let the Tories patch up their Cabinet how 
they like; but when we get a new House of the Common men, -we 
must insist upon the great families admitting into the Administrations 
a fair proportion of men who do not belong to their order, and who repre¬ 
sent views and interests of a much wider kind. While the chief offices 
of Government are filled with members of aristocratic families, mixed 
with an occasional individual sprung from the middle class, but perverted 
by education and the mischievous influences to which he has been 
exposed, great Reforms need not be expected. Organic changes in 
army, navy, law, pauperism, and finance require the elevation into 
the highest posts of public life, of a class of men hitherto excluded 
from them by the selfish arrogance of a few families. The great Mr. 
Cobden was right in refusing office under Lord Palmerston. He would 
have been swamped in such a Cabinet and under such a leader. Men 
of high talent and true popular stamp ought only to join Administra¬ 
tions under fair conditions. Tlieir strength consists in the Truth of the 
principles they represent, and if they undertake to act with others, it 
should be on the condition that those principles are to prevail. There 
are some subjects on which I differ widely from you; but at the present 
moment you stand out honorably and proudly as Britain’s foremost 
representative man in the chief questions which agitate the public 
mind. The true Liberal party will, if it is worth anything, do its duty 
by you and force you into power. Sincerely wishing that you may be 
long and sufficiently sustained by the unwavering confidence of the 
British people, whose highest expectations your talents and devotion 
to their cause have excited. 

I am, dear Sir, yours most cordially in the conquering cause of 
human progress,' 


JOHN SCOTT. 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


7 


LETTER II. 

Belfast, 59, Victoria Terrace, 
February 18th, 1868. 

John Bright, Esq., M.P. 

Dear Sir, — The Scotch Reform Bill was introduced on last 
evening, and the Irish one is to make its reluctant appearance on the 
9th of March. Two successive Ministries have declared that the repre¬ 
sentation of Scotland ought to he increased. In 1866 Mr. Gladstone 
insisted that the right was irrefragable; that, with reference either to 
population or property, the Northern Queendom did not possess a fair 
share of political power. What, then, shall be the final character of 
the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills ? 

After Lord Stanley’s Bristol speech it was very desirable that some 
great and trusted leader of the true Liberal party should boldly reiterate 
the demands which the people of England and Scotland make on behalf 
of the Irish Nation. Lord Stanley, though possessing the intellect and 
education of a statesman, is the heir to a Tory Peer, and one of the 
leading members of a Tory Administration. As a statesman, he would 
say one thing, but as a party politician he must say another. If all 
the aristocratic influences of corruption, which lower the tone of public 
morals in Britain, were swept away, party divisions would still exist, 
and Government by party might still be carried on. The difference 
would be that parties would be founded, not upon family interests, but 
upon personal convictions ; those who agreed in principle would 
combine for action, and as men who differ widely upon some questions, 
agree cordially upon others, the composition of parties would fluctuate 
according to the kind of work that had to be done. The aristocratic 
system, as you are well aware, divides the chief power of Parliament 
between two sets of great families, always ready to subordinate Truth, 
honesty, or national interests to their own narrow claims. A Stanley 
can be a Liberal, or a Tory, just as the exigencies of family interests 
require. A Russell can be a supporter of the Ballot,—as Lord John 
was at the time just preceding the passage of the Reform Bill,—a 
Liberal on Church questions, or a Tory on the Suffrage, just as 
Bedfords, Cavendishes, and other Whig organisms think proper to 
decide. All this is very disgusting, and lowers faith in public men. 
A few years ago Lord Stanley would have been regarded as one of the 
most likely statesmen to have cut the knot of Irish difficulty by 
measures of sterling Justice. Just now he lags with his Tory party, 
and is ready to prostitute his intellect to devise the arguments they 
require, to exhibit some grounds why wrongs should be maintained. 
To-morrow, matters may change,—the Tories may think it advisable 
to out-bid their opponents, and “dish the Whigs” upon the Irish 
question, as they did on that of Reform. But neither faction will move 
in the right direction if it can help it, and the impulse to go right will 
most advantageously come from English and Scotch leaders on the 
Democratic side. If the Irish question is to be settled in our time, 
there must be such a combination of English and Scotch Liberals as 
to force the subject to a distinct issue, whether the Whig or Tory 
factions like it or not. Irish members may help most importantly, but 
the grand work of rescuing Ireland from chronic anarchy and misery must 


8 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


be done for the Irish people, rather than by them. Indeed, if we wait 
for the consummation by the latter method, we should need the thou¬ 
sand years of Methuselah to have any probability of seeing the end. 

You very properly ascribe the principal part of the wretchedness oi 
Ireland to the operation of the ferocious penal laws formerly imposed 
upon the Roman Catholic population of that country, for the avowed 
purpose of impoverishing them and keeping them down in the dust of 
political degradation. The change from the old system to the new 
belongs to our own times, and the mere removal of harsh enactments 
has not been sufficient to enable the people of the country to right 
themselves. You wisely, I think, discourage the disunion nonsense , in 
which certain parties indulge. “ I shall never consent,” is your ex¬ 
clamation, “to any measure that would disturb legislative union, till 
it is proved that in Britain statesmanship is absolutely dead, and till 
it is proved in Ireland that right and Justice have failed to influence 
mankind.” Now, this is the feeling of all intelligent honest men in 
Britain, and if the malcontents in Ireland are not wise enough to 
agitate for specific Reforms instead of getting up seditious clamor for 
disunion, there is the greater necessity that the true Liberals in Par¬ 
liament should show them that statesmanship is not dead nor dying, 
and that Justice has power to produce content. The practical remedies 
suggested by you are “ The abolition of that infamous robbery which 
the Protestant State Church commits upon the Roman Catholic popu¬ 
lation, and the origination of a large class of independent farmers, the 
proprietors of their own farms.” Estimating the Irish State Church 
property at thirteen millions, you asked, “What would be thought in 
England if a couple of towns like Birmingham demanded such a sum 
for purposes in which the rest of the nation did not agree ?” Clearly, 
the Protestant minority must be made to give up its hold on this great 
mass of national property; and if Whig and Tory statesmen do not 
choose to be the instruments of so just and necessary a change, they 
must be thrust aside to make way for better and abler men. With 
reference to methods of originating an independent and industrial 
landed proprietary in Ireland, you have adverted to the use which 
could be made of the Ballot in lessening the Soil-Lords’ political hold 
upon the land. You further pointed to a valuable institution in 
Prussia,—of “ Rent Banks”—to advance to tenant-farmers the money 
required for the purchase of their farms. You also referred to Acts of 
the Canadian Parliament in purchasing for a million sterling, large 
tracts of country, for the purpose of selling it in farms of various 
dimensions. In Prince Edward’s Island, only two years ago, a similar 
process was in operation, and you quoted the Governor’s speech, 
praising a measure which would enable large estates to be purchased 
for a similar purpose. When shall we have operations like these in 
progress in Ireland and throughout Britain ? 

The great majority of the British people would soon settle these 
great questions in the forthcoming Parliament if they were adequately 
represented in that assembly. The great principles lying at the bottom 
of the measures recommended by you are those of obvious justice and 
public utility, and you can point to the actions of great statesmen in 
other countries, and to the opinions of great thinkers all the world 
over, in favor of such plans, to begin with, and pending the resumption 
of the whole lands by the State ; but, How can we compel an aristo¬ 
cratic Government to carry them out ? It is a sheer delusion to suppose 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


9 


that the Reform Bill which the Tories have granted places the balance 
of political power in the hands of the majority. The rotten boroughs 
and the Soil-Lord-ridden Counties will keep the minority in power, and 
they will only consent to part with it, when they are seriously alarmed 
at the amount of intelligent determination which the people exhibit. 
The opposition to Parliamentary Reform was bitter and prolonged. At 
one time it took one shape, and another time it assumed a different 
guise. Both factions resorted to various devices to delay or thwart the 
national desire, but the resistance to the extension of the Suffrage was 
not so violent as will be the resistance to those Consequences of Political 
Justice which Democratic changes in our constitution entail. The 
only way to avert the perils of a prolonged agitation, is to combine so 
great a force of public opinion as to alarm the great factions. There 
shall be no end of trouble with Ireland, and there shall be no end of 
annoyance in England and Scotland, if the people are compelled to go 
through a tedious process of battling for things which common honesty 
and decent intelligence would grant at once. Whigs and Tories reckon 
upon the Illogical Character of British public life, and upon the usual 
unwillingness of the mass of the people to press on for completion after 
a compromise has been conceded. They think that it will be many 
years before a loud demand springs up for a more equal and just 
distribution of political power, and they fancy the present general 
division will enable them to resist organic changes of every kind. 
Simple, however, as your propositions appear if Ireland only is consi¬ 
dered, their adoption involves the acceptance of principles which would 
soon take root in English and Scottish soil. The more enlightened 
Continental Governments have long seen,—what is well known in 
America,—that the interest of the Nation requires the existence of a 
numerous and independent body of yeomanry, such as formerly existed 
in Britain before aristocratic craft and greediness swallowed them up. 
The aristocratic system demands the accumulation of land in the hands 
of a few families, and its cultivation by rent-paying farmers, degraded 
into political serfdom by their Soil-Lords. If the farmer is a serf, the 
laborer will be only one step above a pauper. The nice gradation of 
ranks must be preserved, and the aristocratic pinnacle must have a 
wide basis of popular degradation for its support. Justice to Ireland 
becomes intelligible when it is understood to mean to remove a grievance 
like the robbery of the Protestant State Church, and the introduction 
of a system under which agricultural prosperity becomes a possible 
thing.- It may be said that Ireland is better off than she was some 
years ago, and yet her discontent seems on the increase. The first 
part of this proposition is true. The worst condition of Ireland dates 
some years back ; but political discontent never conforms with close 
accuracy to national wretchedness. Revolutionary feelings are scarcely 
ever prevalent unless great wrongs exist, and considerable discontent 
prevails; but it is not uncommon to find outbursts of revolution when 
the worst is over, and some improvement has begun. Statistics may 
show that Ireland was more starved and pinched at a past date than at 
the present hour; but no Englishman or Scotchman returns from a 
visit to Ireland without bringing home with him abundant evidence 
that the inhabitants are not sufficiently well fed, well clothed, and well 
housed to be a contented people. The men, however, who speak of, 
and encourage the demand for disunion, act rashly and untruthfully 
when they say that only a local Parliament can deal effectively with 


10 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


Irish wrongs. It would be far more true to make the very opposite 
assertion,—that no local Parliament, hut only an Imperial one, can 
legislate as the occasion requires. The Irish people, or at least a 
certain portion of them, are foolish enough to believe this sort of 
nonsense. Demagogues have been long accustomed to fool them with 
such stuff. You propose the cure for this delusion. It is for the 
British Parliament to do what is right, and wdien the Irish people see 
it, they will be convinced. 

In the meantime the reconstruction of the Cabinet is drawing nigh ; 
and the question presents itself,—Who is to be Lord Derby’s successor? 
As usual there are three courses open to the Tories; they may nomi¬ 
nate some amiable artificial nobleman of high rank, under whose name 
rival statesmen might unite; they may invoke Lord Stanley to take 
his father’s place; but the gathering storm has had something to do 
with Lord Derby’s protracted illness ; or Mr. Disraeli, —the fearless, 
the reckless Chancellor of the Exchequer,—may be promoted to be 
Prime Minister of Britain. The experiment, however, of a nominal 
Premiership is not at all likely to be tried at the present momentous 
period. The day is past for ever for Ministries with a purely orna¬ 
mental figurehead. In the first place, such a man must be in the 
gilded House of the Lords, and in itself, as the Nation learned from 
bitter experience, that is a most sweeping objection, which even under 
men like Lord Aberdeen, Lord Russell, and Lord Derby, was sensibly 
felt and painfully regretted. That the Premier ought to be in the 
House of the Common men, is a general rule, laid down by the Duke 
of Wellington, in 1834, and every year confirms the wisdom of the 
iron man’s decision. The fate of the Ministry is always in the hands 
of the representatives of the people, and a Premier defending himself 
by deputy, if not, like the absent, “ always wrong,” is at least often 
wronged. Even if there are exceptional cases where the Nation 
reluctantly accepts a First Minister in the Upper House of the heredi¬ 
tary law-makers, still it would be too bad if the Nation at present had 
to put up, not only with a Peer, but with a purely ornamental Peer ; 
a Semi-State Idol of that kind will find few worshipers in the present 
day. As to Lord Stanley, those who are inventing his candidature 
for the Premiership can hardly have considered the facts of our present 
position. He is in the House of the Common men, it is true ; but,— 
What does that imply? Now, everybody knows that the task of 
leadership not only requires a peculiar ability, a share of which Lord 
Stanley may no doubt possess, but that it involves a very unusual 
amount of hard work, which increases year by year. I doubt whether 
any of our public men could combine its duties with those of the 
Foreign Office. If this were possible, Lord Stanley, one of the most 
industrious statesmen of our time, could accomplish the feat; but, in 
such a duplicate position, even he, I believe, would be overtasked. He 
might, of course, if made Premier, resign the inferior office; but, in 
the interests of his Tory party,—I may, without flattery, add, the 
interests of the Nation at the present juncture,—Would that be wise ? 
The strong point of the present Ministry is its conduct of foreign 
affairs; and there are several almost tangled threads of negociation, 
which it would be injudicious to take from Lord Stanley’s cool and 
steady hands, to place under the charge of some new official. It is 
obvious, however, that there are other objections hardly less effective. 
Lord Stanley has served for years under the leadership of Mr. Disraeli; 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


11 


Why, then, should he he suddenly called upon to supersede his chief? 
Of course, I can understand motives muttered rather than freely 
spoken out. Lord Stanley is a man of high descent,—a man of gentle 
blood,—a member of the territorial aristocracy; and there may be 
country gentlemen, titled and untitled,—nick-named and unnick¬ 
named,—who would prefer his leadership, because, whatever may be 
his opinions, or his personal parts,—he is by family “one of them¬ 
selves while Mr. Disraeli is only a man of genius, whose foreign 
ancestry may be old enough, but who as a squire in Bucks, is merely 
a green production of yesterday. These are considerations not so 
much to be expressed or explained away as to be felt; and there was a 
time when, no doubt, they would have had weight. But that time has 
gone by. The great territorial school has not been opened so many 
years without the schoolmaster’s attaining an influence that his pupils 
cannot put aside. Twenty years ago they preferred him to “ one of 
themselves;” since then he has borne the burthen and heat of the day. 
He has finally led them to the pleasant pastures of official, if not of 
political success, and it would be extremely odd if they were to accept 
the result of his twenty years’ work, and then claim the right of 
electing a new leader to wear the laurels he had won. True Liberals 
must all sympathize with thejfact of Mr. Disraeli’s success in breaking 
down aristocratic barriers too rude and barbarous for our times. It is 
a pity that the coming victory is not going to be won by a man of a 
higher tone of character and with a loftier perception of duty. No one 
can believe that Mr. Disraeli’s career has been founded upon firm 
convictions of what was right. He has never shown much Political 
Conscientiousness. 

Mr. Disraeli, then, will be the Prime Minister of Britain. These 
words mean a great deal. There is something in this fast-coming fact 
worthy of very careful consideration. I have contended against him 
in politics with a persistency of which the readers of my various 
political publications are well aware; I have fought him and his Tory 
party “ from morn to dewy eve;” he and his have struck hard against 
“ The Truth,” and I have returned blow for blow, sometimes, I sincerely 
hope, “with interest:” but I do not deny that there is in his career 
that which attracts even sworn enemies like myself. The Premiership 
of Britain is a great prize ; to win it, to hold it, a man must certainly 
have a rare combination of gifts. He must physically have a vitality 
of constitution that can contend against hard toil and late hours; 
mentally, he must have resources ready for use at any moment and on 
all occasions. He must not only be a fluent speaker, but a rapid 
thinker; he must not only win the confidence of about four hundred 
gentlemen,—the working majority of the House of the Common men,— 
but of over a dozen clever men members of both Houses, with position 
and ability enough to fill high places, and yet prepared to accept him 
as their chief. In Britain, still largely influenced by men of hereditary 
position and wealth, high birth will, of course, go no small way to 
make up for deficiencies in some of the necessary qualifications; but 
the surprise excited by Mr. Disraeli’s success is, that he had nothing 
extrinsic in his favor when he started in the race, and had many things 
against him. There is a strong and still existing British prejudice 
that no man is clever beyond his own line ; and, starting as a writer of 
fashionable and political “sensation” novels, Mr. Disraeli was for 
years best known as the author of “ Vivian Grey.” His father was a 


12 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


literary recluse, and he had no County family at his back ; while the 
earlier characteristics of his mind seemed an excess of poetical imagi¬ 
nation, — an excessive development of Ideality,— and a florid luxuriance 
of speech,—the most essentially “ unBritish' ’ traits that a public man 
■could display. A judicious friend, advising the young member when 
he entered Parliament in 1837, might have said,—“Be prosaic, statis¬ 
tical, and clear; avoid figures of speech, but abound in arithmetic ; he 
docile to the party whip, and one day you may slide into an Under- 
Secretaryship , and—who knows ?—probably in your old age become 
President of the Board of Trade.” But Mr. Disraeli w T as not prosaic, 
not statistical, not clear. He “abounded in the contrary sense;” he 
was eccentric in his votes and speeches, one day supporting his party 
leader, and the next contradicting him to his face ; and the result is 
that he has never been Under-Secretary, and will never he President of 
the Board of Trade. But if Mr. Disraeli attains the Premiership, will 
it he due to his novels, to his eccentricity, to the wild follies of his 
political youth ? No; hut to the fact that, in spite of errors and 
absurdities that would have ruined a weaker man,—a man of genius 
can force his way. I do not believe in him as the statesman of the 
future; the true Liberals should to-morrow r vote “ no.confidence” in 
the Ministry, believing that honest Democratic leaders can alone 
“crown the edifice” with the truest Reforms ; hut if Britain is going 
4o have a Tory Administration, the Liberals should like to have it at 
its best. Let them fight in the light; let them see their real foe ; let 
them not have a Premiership by deputy, or Premiership to suit 
aristocratic susceptibilities. Like the challengers of old, let them ask 
the Tories to bring forth their best man, and they will fight out the 
campaign. If the Tories will do so, and I hope they will, it will force 
the Liberals to unite, and summon to the front their best man; it will 
force him to do his best; it will force us all,—leaders and rank-and-file,— 
to shape out a public policy worthy in every respect of our great cause,— 
which must soon triumph and prevail. 

It is rather too soon to attempt to take a retrospect of Lord Derby’s 
performances on the highest political stage; but though, from my 
point of view, he did many things he ought not to have done, and 
left undone many things he ought to have done, yet it may be 
honestly said, even by his most intense opponents, that “ He himself 
did nothing low or mean on that memorable scene.” Deficient he 
may sometimes ha^e been in logical foresight and in political calculation 
of consequences, hut he always carried the healthy and distinct indi¬ 
viduality of a territorial aristocrat into his politics, and in exerting his 
obstructive influence on his passive followers it lent him enormous 
power. Were it not for the successful obviation of obstruction and 
the overcoming of resistance, we could neither estimate, nor comprehend, 
nor appreciate the forces and purposes of progression. Were obstacles 
not levelled and carried before the stream of progress we could have 
no experience of advancement. Should Lord Derby regain a measure 
of his usual strength, his influence, it may he supposed, wall not be 
lost to his friends; he can return to the House of the Lords refreshed by 
the removal of that load of fear and hard work which the Premiership 
imperatively imposes. His debating energy, his aristocratic weight in 
the House of the hereditary law-makers, may come out with even 
greater force when, with his mind released’ from fear and business 
details, and with improved health, he can resume his place, and in any 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


IB 


fierce figlit doubtless remember, as of old, bis great swashing blows. 
I should be sorry to miss him from the opposing ranks, and the greatest 
Liberal combatant of the day might readily recognize in him a foeman 
worthy of bis sharpest steel. The probable or certain retirement of 
a conspicuous political leader naturally suggests reflections on bis 
character and influence, as well as on the time during which he has 
been concerned in public affairs. 

Although some slender hopes are entertained that Lord Derby may 
regain sufficient strength to be the confidential adviser of his Tory 
party, his official life may be looked upon as closed, and public attention 
reverts to the principal incidents of his time-serving career. He will 
carry with him, on his retirement from office, into private life a very 
general feeling of true respect and regard. Neither his education,— 
which was too exclusively superficial,—nor his natural character, 
resulting from his organization and the influence of his surroundings, 
fitted him to become a great and a brilliant statesman, but early in 
his Parliamentary career, and again towards its close, he manifested 
through the influence of pressure a large-mindedness which will be 
honorably remembered in the history of his times. Few men of equal 
intellectual powers, and with similar inducements for their cultivation, 
learnt so little of the Physical and Economical Sciences, which have 
become of the highest importance in the management of national 
affairs. In no one direction could Lord Derby’s admirers claim for 
him the accurate knowledge or the breadth of thought which charac¬ 
terize a first-class legislator; but a considerable amount of practical 
sagacity, debating faculties of no mean order, and an influential 
position as the head of an old aristocratic house, combined to render 
him one of the most influential men of the time. In early life he 
belonged to the Liberal side, to which he rendered important service, 
and he deserves especial credit for carrying the famous measure for 
National Education in Ireland, so ably explained by the late George 
Combe. He also carried the Church Temporalities Bill, and the 
measure for Emancipating West India Slaves. Having advocated 
Parliamentary Beform, and measures of this description, he ought, in 
logical consistency, to have remained with the Liberal party; but he 
took fright at the progress of Liberal ideas, and separated himself from 
the Whigs in 1834, because he would not consent to a further reduction 
of the Irish Church Establishment. Aristocratic prejudices, and want 
of Economic knowledge, led him to become the head of the Protectionist 
opposition to Corn Law Repeal at a later date, and it was at that time 
Mr. Disraeli, who had won a Parliamentary reputation by badgering 
Sir R. Peel, assisted Lord George Bentinck in organizing an Anti- 
Eree Trade party, and thus prepared the way for his subsequent 
position in the Tory camp. It was very curious that one of the 
proudest men of one of the proudest aristocratic houses in Britain 
should form so strong a friendship as Lord Derby did for the clever 
literary man who. had turned political adventurer without any other 
support than what his own genius might afford. Probably no Whig 
Peer of equal standing would have behaved so well to Mr. Disraeli as 
Lord Derby has done from his first association with him to the present 
hour ; and if the shuffling Whigs have found in the poor son of a 
Jewish literary man, one of their most formidable and dangerous 
opponents, they may thank their own narrow-minded exclusiveness for 
having assisted to place him in such a position. Upon the Reform 


14 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


question, Lord Derby acted after the first Bill in conformity with, his 
aristocratic predilections as long as seemed possible, and whatever may 
have been the influence of mere party feeling in inducing him to take 
the game out of the hands of the treacherous Whigs, he certainly 
rendered the Nation a great service by the course he pursued. It is 
not within my present purpose to write a literary portrait of Lord 
Derby or of Mr. Disraeli, hut to advert to a few facts which give a 
peculiar interest to the prospective retirement of the one and the 
anticipated promotion of the other. Having passed so many years of 
his life in obstructing the most useful measures which were brought 
before Parliament, it is curious that Lord Derby should have enjoyed 
so much personal idiotic popularity ; but the fact is easily accounted 
for by the nature of English public life, and the State-Idol worshiping 
character of the British people. Government by party has been 
accepted as a necessary consequence of the peculiarity of the British 
Constitution, and the Liberals have justly regarded Lord Derby as one 
of the best and most hopeful of their opponents. He has stood before 
them as a high-minded, generous man, with large excuses of birth, 
education, and position for being utterly wrong on many important 
questions; and when he has been disposed to go right, his motives 
have been respected as well as his plans. The meanness of aristocracy 
has never been exhibited by Lord Derby as it has often been shown by 
some of his Colleagues, and continually by the great Whig houses. As 
his party was deficient in talent, he was wise in accepting the services 
of Mr. Disraeli, and he never tried as the Whigs would have done, to 
make him a mere degraded tool,—a humiliated instrument of party 
warfare. The progress of events has made Mr. Disraeli the most 
conspicuous man of his party, and I have no doubt, Lord Derby, when 
he resigns, will recognize the claims of the author of “ Vivian Grey” 
to the Premiership, and recommend her Majesty to raise him to an 
honor which, of course, our worthy sister the Sovereign shall be willing 
to confer. 

The future of the Tory party depends very much on Lord Stanley. 
He will have to choose soon whether he will accept Liberal ideas, with 
their inevitable consequences, or whether he will imitate his father, 
and change from Liberalism to re-action, and throw aw T ay his powers 
and his knowledge, notwithstanding all the pains and expense I have 
been at to give him political knowledge from time to time, during the 
last ten years. The times are very trying to members of aristocratic 
houses; for, whatever may be avowed, almost every political conflict 
is a portion of the great fight between Pampered Privilege and Robbed 
Democracy , which will not cease for many years. Though in many 
respects inferior to his father, Lord Stanley is much better acquainted 
with modern Social Science, and Social Philosophy, and much better 
able to judge what changes of opinion necessarily result from national 
progress,—from the incessant labors of the press. The time is passed 
when the people will submit to be dealt with as children, and ruled by 
others, who claim the privilege of guiding them. Popular rule tends 
to break up the old forms of party Government, and the next Parlia¬ 
ment will probably contain a larger proportion than we have yet had 
of men who will vote on what they think the most Equitable side. 
The Tories, as least given to original thinking, will be most easily kept 
together in political companies, moving according to command; but 
they will be less numerous than the Liberals, and liable to overthrow 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


15 


whenever they cannot get Liberal help. Without the flexible and 
shuffling dexterity and cunning pranks of Mr. Disraeli they would 
soon lose their glittering importance. With his aid, if they have the 
sense to be tractable, they may swallow more and more of their own 
stale principles , and grow strong upon the easily digestible diet. There 
is not a single public question of any importance that admits of a 
genuine Tory solution at the present moment; nor can any Tory 
Administration stand, except by giving effect to the ideas of its 
opponents. Mr. Disraeli probably rejoices at this fact. He has not 
the stupid head required for a genuine Tory, and will, if sufficiently 
pressed, continue to educate his party if they are susceptible for further 
cultivation. Some of the aristocratic noodles are highly indignant at 
the prospect of being put under the command of a successful middle- 
class man, who has risen in political life by his own talents, and who 
has not even a matrimonial connexion with any one of the great 
glittering families. This feeling will, no doubt, give rise to great 
difficulties, and unless Lord Derby gains health enough to keep his 
Tory party in order, the prospective Premiership of Mr. Disraeli will 
terminate in a conspicuous split. Sincerely wishing yourself, Mr. 
Gladstone, and all your faithful associates more and more power to 
carry on your duties, for the benefit of the admiring and expectant 
multitudes, 

I am, dear Sir, your most cordial supporter and co-operator in 
this great and triumphing cause of Justice to the long down-trodden 
millions, 

JOHN SCOTT. 


LETTEE III. 

Belfast, 59, Victoria Terrace, 
February 22nd, 1868. 

J. S. Mill, Esq., M.P. 

Dear Sir, —There is every likelihood, unless some sensational 
plot may be played by the trembling Tories, that next week will be 
emphatically an “ Irish one” in the House of the Common men. . On 
Mr. Maguire’s motion a debate is expected that will be at once inte¬ 
resting and important, and that may be continued for several nights. 
It would be really impossible to exaggerate the importance of the 
forthcoming occasion. The leaders of the two great parties in the 
State will be expected to indicate the opinions, if not the measures, 
which the crisis suggests ; and, since the subjects are grave enough to 
involve the fate of Ministries, the course and character of British 
Politics for generations may be affected by the utterances of our leading 
statesmen in the ensuing debate. I suppose that it is impossible to 
say whether there will be a division; but, under any circumstances, 
the politicians of the Nation will receive from both sides of the House 
of the Common men a mass of valuable information on the state of 
Ireland. So much has recently been said about what the Irish people 
do or do not demand,—about what would or would not satisfy them,— 
that it is essential to have a free fearless discussion which shall bring 
out the facts of the case, as seen by men belonging to all parties. The 



16 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


issues that will be raised on Ireland are also not merely provincial: 
The State Church and the Land question cannot be kept entirely at 
this side of the Channel. They will provoke desires, determinations, 
and thoughts that center round existing British institutions. Statesmen 
tread on hot ashes, with fire and fury beneath, when they touch on all 
the points raised up by the suggestions for the settlement of the Irish 
Church. Whoever proposes the endowment of the Roman Catholic 
Creed excites the furious “ No Popery” cry and provokes the over¬ 
whelming wrath of the fast-progressing Voluntaryism of Britain ; while 
bold ideas of thorough disendowment arouse the fierce alarm of those 
who fear for the funds of the Irish State Establishment. Every word 
let fall on the Irish land question is followed by a shower of quotations 
from Social Economists of every school; while all the Soil-Lordism of 
England and Scotland are equally excited at the proposed application 
to Irish Soil-Lords of measures that may one day soon come home to 
themselves. Here statesmen have one of the great difficulties of the 
situation. Hardly any British statesman can discuss it without A 
mental reservation based on reference to British institutions. Trifling 
motions and the proposal of petty remedies do a great deal of harm in 
Ireland as well as throughout England and Scotland, by disturbing the 
growth of a sound public opinion and distracting worthy men’s minds 
from the practicable remedies of Political Science for the evils that 
exist. Still, if regular political physicians refuse, or delay to treat the 
case, or desert the suffering patient, or merely prescribe without seeing 
that the remedies are promptly applied,—What can we expect but a 
succession of great field-days next week for the noisy quacks ? I must 
go further than this : I hold not only that trifling motions and petty 
proposals inflict harm, but that every vague admission by British 
writers or statesmen, that “something must be done,” keeps alive an 
unhealthy simmering of Irish expectation. I would not propose to 
make it penal for any writer or statesman to say that new and excep¬ 
tional legislation is required for Ireland; but I do say, and you must 
be well aware of the fact, that such repeated admissions,—and men of 
all parties are constantly making them,—when coupled with continuous 
inaction , produce enormous mischief. What should the people of 
England think of their statesmen if they were found guilty of similar 
conduct, in the case of any purely English question ? Suppose the 
public writers and statesmen of England had kept on repeating for 
thirty years that the Corn Laws were an anomaly, and that they ought 
to be reformed ,—abolished,—and yet still have left them, year by year, 
to impede importation and enhance the price of bread,—Wliat\vould 
be thought of the fatuity of politicians ? Yet, you know, that this is 
what everybody, from Mr. Disraeli the adventurer, to Lord Russell 
the orthodox Whig, has been saying since 1829 about the Irish State 
Church ; and yet there it stands, a monument of conquest, monopo¬ 
lizing the ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland, a distinct burthen on Irish 
agrarian industry, a source of political irritation, an unparalleled 
reproach to a people pretending respect for the rights of others. The 
inflexible attitude of the old Eldon Tories was intelligible and manly; 
they held out no hope to Irish Roman Catholics; they declared that 
the Irish State Church was a very solemn portion of that Divine 
thing,—of that supernatural concoction,—the British Constitution, and 
that to touch it would be sacrilege. If all the British people could 
have adhered to this Tory principle, statesmen should now have to 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


17 


deal with a clear stern fact, and either the Irish people would accept 
the situation, or rise up against British rule in a formidable insur¬ 
rection that would settle the question of mastery for probably some 
years. But Britain took no such straightforward course. She half- 
undid the old penal chain,—she allowed the Roman Catholics to 
practise their religious rites, to enter Parliament, and to take offices; 
but she still taxed them for the support of an alien Church, and still 
excluded them from the pompous Viceroyalty,—still did everything 
which she could in a small way to ignore and insult their priests. 
These facts, indeed, afford the common platform from which the 
discussion can start. Every one admits that past British legislation 
inflicted injury on Ireland as a whole, and on Irish Roman Catholics 
as the majority of the Nation. Everybody, with a few obvious excep¬ 
tions, admits that Britain should repeal all present laws which impose 
exceptional disabilities on Irish Roman Catholics. 

In 1819, Sir Robert Peel pleaded hard against Catholic Emanci¬ 
pation, on the ground that the Catholics would never be content with 
the mere right to send members to Parliament,—they would go further, 
and agitate for the removal of the Protestant Church. And experience 
has proved Peel was right in his surmises. Justice cannot be done 
by quarters or halves; and we may now rest assured that the same 
Truth will hold good. Nothing less than complete Justice will stop 
Irish grievances. If British statesmen are not prepared to grant 
complete Justice to Ireland, let them suppress not only proposals, but 
even every form of discussion. For every word they utter is now 
heard by an unusually excited and expectant people. If the Imperial 
Parliament is not prepared to act out its opinion, reiterated admissions 
that “ something ought to be done,” will only keep alive irritation and 
that hope deferred that sickens and slays the mental constitution. 
What should intelligent wise men think of a Board of Surgeons who 
kept telling a patient that an operation of some kind was absolutely 
necessary, and who yet allowed day after day to elapse without doing 
it. That is the treatment which Ireland,—the “ Sick Man," —has 
received at the hands of the British doctors. Oh, for some adequate 
authority to call on all intelligent men in Britain to declare whether 
there is now in the nature of things any just cause or impediment to 
practical legislation for Ireland ! On these facts, I base an argument 
that Britain should not be content with what she has nearly com¬ 
pleted,—the repeal of all Anti-Irish Legislation,—but should, as far 
as she can, repair the damage done by the penal laws, and undo 
the still existing effects of former legislation. What, then, do states¬ 
men find in Ireland as the effect of long British rule ? The masses of 
the people are divorced from all ownership or even enduring tenancy 
of the soil. There are few Soil-Lords professing the national creed. 
Excepting in some parts of the Province of Ulster, no prosperous 
manufactures draw off what is termed the surplus population from the 
land. The agriculture of the country, generally speaking, is poor, and 
is getting worse year by year; the total yearly value of Irish produce 
is decreasing; over many districts once yielding crops and supporting 
many families, Bullocks and Sheep accumulate and men decay. The 
majority of the people have to support two Churches,—their own and 
the alien Church imposed by British laws. The majority of the people 
have a Church which the Government persistently ignores. The 
majority of the people are told by the Tory leader of the House of the 


IB 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


Common men,—the prospective Prime Minister of the British Em¬ 
pire,—that, though inclined to he indulgent, he cannot allow any 
Irishman who accepts the religious faith of the Nation to fill the 
highest office in Ireland. Notwithstanding the frequent changes of 
British Governments, the office of First Minister has, by some curious 
incident, remained a close monopoly. In two-and-twenty years there 
have been seven Cabinets, and only four Prime Ministers. Lord 
Derby and Lord Russell, both of whom entered public life more than 
forty years ago, are the only living statesmen who have held the 
highest office under the Crown. It was probably fortunate for the 
Whig leader that his more brilliant and eloquent rival broke off from 
his early party relations before the death of Lord Althorp ; for the 
Mr. Stanley of 1834, with equal advantages of birth and connexion, 
and second only To Sir Robert Peel in Parliamentary position, could 
scarcely have been postponed even to the most genuine representative 
of hereditary and orthodox Whiggery. 

If Lord Derby should soon resign for the purpose of causing a great 
national sensation and to abate Irish expectation, it would be both mis¬ 
chievous and absurd if incidental birth or artificial connexions, were, 
in such a grave affair as the Premiership, to take the lead of personal 
capacity, or even to assume a nominal precedence. The old Tory 
families produce a man fit to rule about once in a hundred years, and 
in the intervals, the Nation has men like Canning, Peel, and Disraeli, 
sprung from the middle classes, promoted to the leadership of this 
essentially aristocratic party. The Imperial reward for which “Dis¬ 
raeli the Younger,” as he then wrote himself, was audacious enough 
to hope thirty years ago is now very nearly within his cunning grasp. 
When he first rose to speak in the House of the Common men, his 
attitudes were forced, his style extravagant, his matter worthless, his 
tone false. When he tried to be oratorical he provoked laughter, 
and when, chilled by the shouts of derision, he subdued his voice, 
his words were heard amid a silence so unsympathetic, that he 
interrupted himself to say that he would gladly have a cheer, 
“ even from the lips of an opponent.” Such a reception was very 
peculiar; for the House of the Common men is, as a general rule, 
indulgent to excess towards maiden speeches; yet the prospective 
Premier of Britain was thus shouted down at his very first essay. Mr. 
Disraeli then said : “I have attempted many things and have often 
failed at the beginning; but I have never abandoned the final hope of 
success. I sit down now, yet the time will come when you shall hear 
me.” Since that time he has made good his boast; not that the 
subsequent success justified the rather inflated prediction, but with the 
patience which is always possessed by really clever men, he unlearned 
the more eccentric absurdities of his style ; and, after thirty years’ 
political toil, he is soon to be the Prime Minister of Britain. He will 
soon reach the highest position to which a British citizen can aspire. 
Since that time,—1837, only five statesmen have been Prime Minister: 
Sir Robert Peel, Lord Aberdeen, Lord Russell, Lord Palmerston, 
and Lord Derby. All five were at that period prominent politi¬ 
cians and probable Premiers in the coming years; while it would 
then have seemed very strange if a prophet, omitting at least a score 
of other secondary lights, had pointed to the poor literary young gen¬ 
tleman who had just entered the House as the successor in the 
Premiership to leading men of the day. Personages of marked ability 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


19 


and worth, have devoted their lives to British politics, and have passed 
away without this crowning honor of the politician’s career. Reflecting 
on their failure, Mr. Disraeli would he the last to tell the Nation that 
political genius alone will win the Premiership prize. “ Destiny,” of 
which goddess he has always been the avowed High Priest, will also 
claim her share in the forthcoming bestowal of honor and trust. But, 
apart from the probable change of First Minister, the great question 
confronts the Nation,—What will be tfiu policy of the new prospective 
Ministry ? While Lord Derby was absent through illness intensified 
by fear and the difficulties of the situation this Session, the Opposition 
might courteously forbear pressure, and might postpone decisive 
inquiry. Nor will Mr. Disraeli,— in the event of Lord Derby’s re¬ 
signation,—be denied ample time to rebuild the Administration; but 
when he meets the House of the Common men again, in the character 
of Premier, then most assuredly will come the tug of war. First of 
all he must declare an Irish policy; the Nation must know the inten¬ 
tions and plans of the prospective Government as soon as it will be 
formed. With every consideration for the statesman whose talents 
may soon achieve so remarkable a triumph, the Nation cannot remain 
long blind to the fact that his position will be far more difficult than 
that of his predecessor. The indulgence so spontaneously, and so 
idolatrously accorded to Lord Derby, in recognition of his gentle 
blood,—in memory of some of his services, in consideration of his age, 
infirmities, and other peculiar personal qualities, will not, I suspect, 
be extended to the statesman who is likely to follow him; for the 
very circumstances of Mr. Disraeli’s probable advance would appear 
to challenge large expectation and a vast amount of practical criticism. 
He will be expected, if he enters upon the Premiership, to render a clear 
account of his new trust; he will, with more than average sternness, 
be judged by his deeds. To meet that trial he must cast the slough of 
Tory service, and show the Nation his own true color and character,— 
a difficult task for him. If he is to become the Premier of Britain, and 
not the Premier of the Tory party, he must let the Nation see clearly 
that he perceives the difference between the two offices. The public 
will generously construe hi« first acts in the position to which his 
genius and resolve may raise him; but those first acts will go near to 
be his last if he should forget after promotion what is the chief honor 
of his triumph,—that he rose from the people and owes a deeper 
loyalty to the Nation than to the Tory creed, which has so long pur¬ 
chased and so often borrowed the misdirection of his splendid talents. 

Should Mr. Disraeli be appointed Lord Derby’s successor, he will 
have great difficulties before him in his new position. There are still 
important portions of the Reform scheme incomplete, and Ireland is a 
rock on which any Administration composed chiefly of aristocratic 
elements would be sure to split. The Tories, as you are clearly aware, 
want to lessen the value of the concessions they have been obliged to 
make by re-adjusting the boundaries of many boroughs, so as to 
diminish the Liberal element in the Counties. They also wish to 
manipulate the Scotch Representation so as to augment Soil-Lord 
power. How will Mr. Disraeli, when he becomes Premier, behave in 
these matters, and with regard to the Irish Reform Bill, on which 
many difficulties are sure to arise, as true Liberals are expected to do 
their duty ? It seems very probable that Lord Stanley and Mr. 
Disraeli will work harmoniously together, and the natural course of 

B 


20 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


events must lead to fresli divisions amongst the aristocratic houses. 
A re-actionary party and a moderately progressive one would appear 
inevitable diversions amongst them, and if the new Reform Bill works 
decently, a Democratic popular party may hold the balance in its 
hands. Some outside politicians think that Mr. Disraeli will be 
content if he can by any possibility rise to the highest political position 
to which a British subject can attain; but it is more likely, I think, il 
he does not become intoxicatecft>y being promoted to the highest office, 
that he will wish to associate his name with further measures which, 
like the Reform Bill, belong to the progressive movements of the time. 
A man so able and so acute, cannot possibly labor under the delusion 
that British society has reached a fixed stage, and that the growth of 
Democracy is to have no influence on the character of legislation or 
the tone of society. It is not the Democratic politician who is bringing 
about Democratic change. The most Tory merchant who demands 
first-class goods for exportation,—the most aristocratic artificial noble 
who purchases the products of skilled labor,—the most re-actionary 
Soil-Lord who finds himself compelled to advocate the extended use 
and application of machinery on his farms,—all contribute to under¬ 
mine the exclusive and narrow systems which have hitherto prevailed 
in British social and political life. More education,—more skill,— 
more trustworthiness,—these are the constant demands which various 
classes make upon the working class, and, so far as they are responded 
to, there will be an increase in the number of persons who will not 
tolerate inequalities that outrage the sense of Justice. Mr. Disraeli 
is as capable of comprehending these things as any public man of our 
day, and I shall be surprised if he does not show a higher ambition 
than that of sitting for a brief space in the proud position which he is 
certain to win within a few days. The Liberal party will do well to 
take a generous view of the difficulties which are sure to surround him, 
and to help him as much as they can if he remains sober and refrains 
from insolence. Although he has not worked from the highest motives, 
he has rendered a great public service by breaking up the power of the 
Shuffling Whig families and of the Stand-still Tories ; and if he is 
sustained in further efforts of the same kind, the result will be most 
beneficial. A premature attempt to form a Liberal Government 
would be a grave mistake, and the Liberals should exert themselves to 
bring, at least, four or five men totally unconnected with the great 
aristocratic families into such prominence that they must have seats 
in the first Liberal Cabinet that is brought together. 

In the meantime, the advanced minds in the Nation are anxiously 
relying upon Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Fawcett, Mr. Bright, yourself, and 
all your true associates in the cause of progress, for carrying forward 
those measures which Justice demands, and that the people are 
determined to have. Mr. Bright is now an acknowledged great power 
in the State. Ministerial decisions are influenced by his public utter¬ 
ances ; his speeches are eagerly read by the inhabitants of two worlds. 
In America, as well as in Europe, lie is recognized as one of the 
greatest political orators and largest-minded statesmen of the day. 
His bitterest political opponents pay involuntary tribute to his great¬ 
ness. They are terribly afraid of him; and as they are altogether 
unable to refute his arguments, or cope with him in eloquence, they 
ransack the gutters and cess-pools of purchased animosity for the 
rhetorical filth which is almost their sole rejoinder to his incontro- 


21 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 

vertible facts.. Firmly believing that tlie good time is not far distant, 
when the British people will set about making successful arrangements 
for sufficiently training and paying men qualified by their organizations 
to represent them, and carry forward the national work effectually in 
the forthcoming new Parliament, 

I am, dear Sir, your cordial co-operator in the great prevailing 
cause of equal Justice, 

JOHN SCOTT. 


LETTER IV. 

Belfast, 59, Victoria Terrace, 
February 26th, 1868. 

John S. Mill, Esq., M.P. 

Dear Sir, —I observe by this morning’s papers that Lord Derby 
has resigned, and hands his office over to his own faithful Lieutenant. 
The announcement will cause no surprise to the public, especially to 
those who have been watching for some time back the gathering storm 
of forthcoming political discussions. Lord Derby, who has been three 
times Prime Minister of Britain, has by his passive resignation brought 
Tory Government to a final termination; and the Chancellor of the 
Exchequer has been commissioned to form a new Ministry. The 
announcement last night suspended the expected Irish debate with an 
interruption the causes of which political historians will thoroughly 
criticise and expose, notwithstanding that Mr. Disraeli,— the adven¬ 
turer,—has at last won the prize of his consummate tact and indomitable 
persistence. This was the inevitable and proper result. But why did 
not Lord Derby resign before or at the time when Parliament met ? 
The answer is simple. Had Lord Derby resigned then, the sensation 
consequent upon the announcement would have lacked more than half 
of its intensity; and moreover, it would not have interfered so much 
with the Irish debate. Beyond the change in the headship of the 
Ministry, there must, of course, be a few other alterations. As Mr. 
Disraeli is to take Lord Derby’s place, the Exchequer will, at least, 
become vacant. Will the new Premier confine his choice to his own 
colleagues ?—or will Mr. Disraeli endeavor to go beyond their circle ? 
It may not be too curious to inquire whether the clause enabling 
Ministers to exchange from office to office without re-appeals to their 
constituencies, was prompted by any anticipation of the present emer¬ 
gency. It is certainly most opportune for its author at this juncture ; 
for it enables him, if he pleases, to shift and re-shift the personnel of his 
Cabinet without that cankering element of care which used to infest all 
such transpositions. It is no longer necessary to be anxious about the 
view which the electors may have taken in the interim about the merits 
of their Ministerial representative. This simplifies the task of the 
First Minister, if it shall seem necessary to him to make transpositions ; 
and at the same time it will have a convenience peculiarly welcome at 
the present juncture, since it will enable him to come to Parliament 
again at an earlier period than if he had to await the will of the various 
Boroughs and Counties concerned. It seems to me a most seasonable 
change, and one which the present crisis is particularly well calculated 



22 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


to recommend.* The Nation wishes to get at something definite on the 
perilous Irish questions ; and Lord Derby’s illness has already excited, 
however unjustly, too much of the attention of the State Idol wor¬ 
shipers ; the public attention directed towards the gouty toes of the 
great territorial Tory has thrown for a time national questions into the 
shade ; and the disappointed Mr. Maguire merely expressed the 
universal sentiment of the advanced minds of the Nation when he 
uttered the demand that Parliament should proceed to business as soon 
as possible. This must be done; and the new regulation is of signal 
usefulness towards that end. Mr. Disraeli has no wishes to consult 
but his own and those of his colleagues ; he can say, like the Centurion, 
to one, “ Go, and he goeth and to another, “ Come, and he cometh;” 
and the thing will be done to the satisfaction of the man who sold his 
malignity to badger Sir Robert Peel. In short, the retirement of the 
great territorial patron of the Turf,—the late Premier,—leaves the 
political situation substantially unchanged, and it was not to be anti¬ 
cipated that his successor would meet with any grave difficulty in the 
mere re-adjustment of the Cabinet under the statesman who has already 
moulded its form and shaped its policy to accomplish the purposes of 
his own towering ambition. The Nation has a right to demand that 
the Administration will at once plunge into the urgent business 
awaiting it; and on the successful schemer,—Mr. Disraeli himself,— 
will devolve the task of putting forth a declaration that will be heard 
and carefully examined far beyond the walls of the House of the 
Common men. The triumphant adventurer comes into office with 
some of the gravest questions of the present age challenging him for their 
solution. There may be certain grounds for some delay in producing 
the final sweeping measures so urgently demanded, but there can be 
no excuse for reticence as to the policy and intentions of the Adminis¬ 
tration,—after the Tory sensation caused by the resignation of Lord 
Derby has evaporated. The Nation has a right to expect plain fore¬ 
shadowings ; and, unless Mr. Disraeli may be thrown out of balance, 
or has lost all his ancient tact, he will not wantonly dally with the 
justifiable impatience of the British people and of the House of the 
Common men. 

Every comprehensive politician must now be thoroughly convinced, 
that the Irish Sectarian Question really admits hut of two solutions: 
Disendoivment of all, or Equitable Endowment of all,—a complete level¬ 
ling up, or a perfect levelling down; in short, as the Mr. Disraeli of 
1844 very properly put it,—“Ecclesiastical Equality.” When the 
Parliament shall re-assemble to discuss the Irish questions, the 
Nation may exclaim,—“At last we shall approach the great British 
problem of the age!” A succession of incidents has delayed its dis¬ 
cussion. During the November Session the domestic troubles of Mr. 
Disraeli induced the Opposition to postpone all but the voting of the 
Abyssinian estimates. When Parliament met again Lord Derby’s 
illness suggested a large measure of excessive indulgence to a Ministry 
without a working chief. Now begins the reconstruction of the Cabinet, 
which will probably cause more than a fortnight’s pause. A few days, 
however, will bring the leading statesmen of the Nation “front*to 
front” with the acknowledged Irish evils; so that they may see them 

* A clause in the last Reform Act obviates the necessity for the re-election of any 
present Minister in the House of the Common men, on hi s changing one office for 
another. 







POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


23 


in all tlieir height, depth, and breadth, and make one earnest effort 
to master them in the interest of the Empire, and in the interest of 
Ireland herself. There is no doubt that the Ministerial programme on 
this topic will be the crucial test of Mr. Disraeli’s ability to rise from 
the mere management of the House to the higher tasks of statesman¬ 
ship ; for the rescue of Ireland is not one of the questions on which 
the members of the House of the Common men can take the game 
into then* own hands, and release the Premier from his profound 
responsibility. The present crisis is not unlike that of 1885. Then, 
as now, the Liberal party commanded a large majority of the members 
of the House of the Common men. Then, as now, a great Reform 
Bill had been passed, and there was, as at present, a comparative lull 
in purely English and Scotch politics. In such intervals the great 
Irish questions—namely, the questions of the State Church robbery 
and of the land plundered from the people forming the Nation,— 
naturally arise ; the wail of wronged Ireland is heard “ in the pauses 
of the wind'' that announce the coming storm, and politicians are 
free to listen. Then, as now, a Tory Ministry was in office, and had 
to deal with the Irish difficulty. In 1885, the Ministers lost office 
because their measures were not bold enough for the crisis. Without 
any ardent desire for the long life of a Tory Cabinet, in which there 
will be so much effete blood, honest politicians may say, Absit omen; 
since unhappily the Liberals then pushed the Tories from their official 
stools, but had to abandon in office the measures they had promised 
the Nation when out of place. The Nation certainly cannot desire 
that page of political history to be written over again; nor is it at all 
likely. In the first place, Mr. Disraeli, more fortunate than Sir 
Robert Peel, has never had any close compact with Irish Orangeism, 
and is more free, if he minds himself properly, to deal boldly with the 
Irish State Church robbery. In the second place, the great Liberal 
leader is not a politician of the old school. Mr. Gladstone is not an 
ancient Whig; he proved in 1886, that when he proposes a great 
measure he means either to carry it or to resign,—the way to win, as 
the history of ’67 shows. The Nation, therefore, may expect to see, 
this Session, not one of the old unprincipled party fights, with its 
mere contest for place, its display of public men trying to trip each 
other up. The Nation shall find this Session great principles brought 
face to face,—shall witness a contest that will severely try the mental 
tone and temper of our best men. The Reform question of 1867 was 
in the main a battle of political theories and prognostics. But now 
questions are to be touched that always stir deep feelings,—questions 
involving the right of the Roman Catholic majority of Ireland to the 
legislation which they desire. 

Beyond every other ground for promptitude in displaying to Ireland 
a new spirit, an important motive is supplied in the prospect of the 
new Irish Reform Bill. Its details are not yet known, but it will 
probably include a £4 Borough Franchise,—because below that line 
the Proprietor pays rates,—and some redistribution that will reduce 
the Parliamentary power of the very small Boroughs. Now, it is clear 
that any such change, inevitable of course, will augment the power of 
the popular party, and that the number of members hostile to the 
Established Church Iniquity will be decidedly increased. The result 
will be, that, out of the members returned to Parliament, all but a 
small percentage must be representatives of the Roman Catholic ma- 


I 


24 THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 

jority. The Tory Soil-Lords are constantly proclaiming that Ireland 
is becoming very prosperous, because, though more and more land 
falls out of cultivation every year, yet, as her population is decreasing, 
that does not matter; and when they are shown that evictions and 
clearances drive the rural people into towns, to herd together, they 
answer that the change is very good. Thus a progress is observed 
that shows decrease of cattle, increase of sheep, decrease of tillage, 
increase of pasture, decrease of men, increase of discontent, decrease of 
the more healthy rural, and increase of the crowded urban population ; 
and all this is so satisfactory that Liberal statesmen are not to touch 
the beautiful fabric of Irish prosperity lest they should rudely bring it 
to the ground. Will Mr. Disraeli indorse this insanity ? Will the 
triumphant schemer have the courage to rise above the bigotry of his 
old Tory supporters, and disdain the weak apologies of Whig jour¬ 
nalists ? Mr. Disraeli has taken possession of the great prize; he 
has attained a magnificent political position. But the post of Prime 
Minister of Britain is certainly no sinecure : it is powerful enough to 
gratify a vaulting ambition; hut it has a burthen of care sufficient to 
keep down any excessive exuberance of spirits. Mr. Disraeli has 
shown himself hold enough in a hardly secondary position; hut there 
is no doubt that his responsibility is largely increased by- the fact that 
he stands alone at the head of the Ministry, and that the Nation 
expects from him a decisive course with respect to the most urgent yet 
most difficult problem of the day. The gentleman of the press finds 
himself now the successor of Chatham, Canning, Peel, and Derby. 
But he will do well to remember, that history will efface his Adminis¬ 
tration from her tablets with a contemptuous stroke of the pen, if he 
and his Cabinet should try to dodge the stern necessities of the hour 
with make-believe professions and ingenious delays. In 1844, Mr. 
Disraeli, then one of the Tory rank-and-file, made a very able and 
liberal speech on Irish affairs, and pronounced for “Ecclesiastical 
Equality .” Would it he too much to ask him to say these words over 
again from his present high place on the Treasury Bench ? Of one 
thing he may be certain, and that is, that the Nation shall not fail to 
try his metal. 

Those who will take the trouble to turn to the opening chapters of 
“ Coningsby,” at the present political crisis, may enjoy, if they examine 
Mr. Disraeli’s day-dreams many years ago, something of the pleasure 
of a new sensation. They will see how the ingenious author of that 
sparkling work delighted in the peculiar political excitement of forming 
imaginary Cabinets, and how he endeavored to realize the position of 
the fortunate statesman who had been chosen by the Sovereign to con¬ 
struct a Government, and the paralyzing anxieties of the small-brained 
politicians, whom he characterized as the “ Tadpoles” and “ Tapers,” 
for the “ Under- Secretary-ships” and the “ Commissionerships” which 
were at the disposal of the Chief of the party. The pages in which the 
peculiar situation of 1832 is depicted, when the Socialistic King Willl\m 
the IY,—the bosom friend and convert of the illustrious philanthropist, 
Robert Owen,— sent for the great trained-man-killer,—the callous- 
minded Duke of Wellington, who had to drive down Constitution Hill 
with his carriage doors locked and pistols by his side, have at the 
present time a very vivid personal interest. The man who wrote the 
pages referred to in 1848, when he was almost despairingly endea¬ 
voring to convince Sir Robert Peel of his great value, and who, in 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


25 


the same work, spoke of Sir Robert as the great man in a great 
position once sent for from Rome to Govern Britain, is now himself 
busily engaged in tlie work of forming a Government, and finds his 
imaginative descriptions realized in his own person. If Mr. Disraeli 
was to Govern the British Empire at all, it is no doubt much better 
that he should Govern it openly than through some titled dummy. 
This much Mr. Disraeli’s most decided and uncompromising poli¬ 
tical opponents can cheerfully acknowledge. There are now many 
special grounds or particular circumstances that diminish to some 
extent the objections which may justly be entertained by many to 
such a Premiership. That a man who, at the commencement of his 
political career, wrote “ Vivian Grey,” in which the leading idea is 
that of a clever schemer,—a smart unscrupulous adventurer,—using 
Dukes, Marquises, and Earls as his tools, and acting on the words, 
which are printed on the title-page,—“ The world is mine oyster , which 
I with sword will open ,—(the sword in this case being, however, a ready 
and unscrupulous tongue,)—should, after carrying, as they who have 
watched Mr. Disraeli cannot but affirm, the theory he then formed of 
political advancement literally into practice, and after showing not 
the slightest regard to any political principle, except as it might con¬ 
tribute to his own political purposes, become Prime Minister of Britain, 
is, no doubt, when properly viewed, an instance of national humilia¬ 
tion. Until last Session, however, careful observers had some ground 
for believing that the rank-and-file of the Tory party which had accepted 
Mr. Disraeli’s services had not been permanently affected by his 
example. It was well known that for many years they preferred Lord 
Palmerston as Prime Minister to Lord Derby ; and I need scarcely 
say, that in this great office Lord Derby was indefinitely more accept¬ 
able to them than Mr. Disraeli now is or ever can be. Last Session, 
however, the great body of the Tories may fairly be considered to have 
adopted Mr. Disraeli’s leadership. They did what he told them. 
They voted for Household Suffrage, after opposing Mr. Gladstone’s 
moderate Reform Bill of the previous Session. They have since 
allowed Mr. Disraeli to declare that all the expedients of fancy fran¬ 
chises, of personal rating, and of dual votes were only used as blinkers 
to a shying horse, for the purpose of leading his followers to adopt the 
great extension of the Suffrage, which, had it been at first plainly 
exposed before them, they never would have approached. He has 
boasted of his efforts for their education. The recent language of Sir 
S. Northcote, Mr. Hardy, and even Lord Stanley, proved that they 
were willing pupils, who in the enjoyment of the honors and emolu¬ 
ments of office, showed a merciful unconsciousness of their degrada¬ 
tion. They have adopted Mr. Disraeli’s manner. They are practised in 
his Arts. The whole Tory party, with some honorable exceptions, have 
graduated in his school. Since he is now really their political chief,— 
since they are not ashamed of him,—since they glory in him,—it is 
but right" that this gentleman, without rank or title, without any 
earnest convictions, except a firm belief in himself, and still calling 
himself a Jew,—though “ a Jew who believes in both parts of the 
Jewish religion,”—should stand forth the Prime Minister of the great 
aristocratic party that has so long professed to walk in the ancient 
ways, to combat Democracy, and to maintain an uncompromising 
devotion to the State Church of England. Some people may, indeed, 
feel inclined to weep, and others to laugh, at this strange spectacle. 


26 


TI1E SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


But it is the affair of the Tories more than of the Liberals, who, under 
such circumstances, have all the more cause to rejoice that they have 
such a leader as Mr. Gladstone. It is for the Liberals to see that Mr. 
Disraeli, as Prime Minister, continues to educate his own followers to 
do Liberal work, and that they do not lend themselves to any of liis 
re-actionary schemes. Even the Tories themselves can scarcely believe 
that a Disraeli Administration can strengthen Tory institutions. 

We are emphatically living in a Democratic age. Many sincere 
adherents of the cause of progress and reform, who have no intrinsic 
admiration of Mr. Disraeli, will delight at seeing him thus maintain 
his ground against the Earls, Marquises, and Dukes who sit in the 
same Cabinet with him, but who look down upon him as a clever but 
low-born adventurer. This personal triumph may thus be said to 
assist the Cause of Democracy. It shows, that, in the most aristocratic 
Nation in the whole world, the highest position to which a citizen may 
aspire can be attained, even against the most wealthy and the proudest 
of patrician rivals, by a mere plebeian. The Tory party may boast that 
their highest places are really open to all competitors ; that they are 
willing to act on the Democratic maxims, “ A free career to talents,” 
and “ The tools to the man who can use them.” The pretensions 
even of the great Whig families are tacitly but emphatically rebuked 
by Mr. Disraeli’s advancement. If the Tories thus accept Mr. Disraeli 
as their Prime Minister, it will not do for the Peers and their depen¬ 
dents, who call themselves Whigs and Liberals, to continue their old 
system of exclusion, by which Edmund Burke, who had virtually led 
the party for many years, and was really the Educator of their young 
chief, Charles James Fox, was kept out of the Cabinet, not only when 
the second Buckingham Administration was formed, but afterwards 
during the coalition Ministry of Fox and North. Too much, however, 
will doubtless be made of this personal success. It is, no doubt, grati¬ 
fying to Mr. Disraeli thus to rise to the highest place ; but it must 
not be forgotten that the means he has employed have not always 
been the most praiseworthy. The evil of his political career consists 
in the fact that the end has been regarded as more important than the 
means employed to accomplish it, even when this end was, after all, 
merely personal. What Cause has Mr. Disraeli ever cordially identified 
himself with and successfully advocated ? Plis sole legislative achieve¬ 
ment is the concession of Household Suffrage, which he induced his 
party to accept last Session, after refusing to reduce the Borough 
Franchise at all in 1859, and opposing Mr. Gladstone’s seven-pound 
Borough Franchise in 1866. This Household Suffrage is thoroughly 
disliked by the Tories, and may be disliked still more when it wifi be 
found that the calculations by which they were prevailed upon to 
accept it as advantageous to the interests of their party, were utterly 
erroneous, and were formed under the idea that the people now, in the 
rural districts of England, are what they were thirty or forty years 
ago, when Mr. Disraeli was young. As so many complaints are heard 
from the Tories about the alarming theories which are now promul¬ 
gated, it may not be out of place to remind them that they have Mr. 
Disraeli to thank for the daring proposals which men of eminence 
now, do not hesitate to make. Why is it that people are less cautious 
than they were even twelve months ago ? AVhy is it that theories are 
broached which, a year ago, would have been regarded as purely 
Utopian ? It is owing to the manner in which the Government was 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


27 


conducted last Session, and Household Suffrage, without being asked 
for, forced upon the acceptance of the Legislature as a party manoeuver. 
It is in the nature of extremes to produce extremes. The Household 
Suffrage of last Session has caused many things to he considered 
j>ossible, which, until then, were regarded as utterly visionary. The 
functions of a responsible leader of the Government were all abnegated 
last year by Mr. Disraeli. He made the House of the Common men 
really the Government; and did more to introduce the flood-tide of 
Democracy than any statesman of this generation. As Prime Minister, 
he cannot show this servile deference to a mere majority former 
anyhow. He must have a policy of his own. He must show himself 
conscious of responsibility. I am not, indeed, altogether of the opinion 
proclaimed by some of my most esteemed political friends, that 
because Mr. Disraeli has been reckless and unscrupulous in an inferior 
position, he ought to be placed in the highest in order to become more 
cautious. Men may, indeed, be sobered by responsibility. But I am 
not at all satisfied that, because the Ship’s First Lieutenant has shown 
himself ready to let the State Vessel drive at the mercy of the winds 
and waves if only he could gratify his personal vanity, he ought to be 
made Captain that he may act with more prudence for the Nation’s 
sake as well as his own. A Disraeli Ministry, however, is, it seems, 
at the present moment, a necessity. If Mr. Disraeli can persuade his 
colleagues and his party to accept him as the head of the Government, 
the Liberals may reconcile themselves to the prospect, without being 
at all enraptured with what they are called upon for a time to endure. 
If everything else fails the Liberals, they may, at least, put their trust 
in the Million-tongued Press conducted by men who comprehend the 
Principles of Political Science. The party of progress may not be 
destined to perish altogether. As Britain has been reminded by a 
brilliant historian that she owes more to the weakness of her worst 
Sovereigns than to the wisdom of the best, so even a Disraeli Ministry, 
checked by a powerful Opposition led by Mr. Gladstone, may do more 
for national progress than the ablest Liberal Government could do, 
opposed by an unscrupulous Opposition led by the once poor man of the 
Press who has now become Prime Minister, with Earls, Marquises, 
and Dukes to attend him. 

Whatever political opponents may say to the happy fortune which 
has bestowed on Mr. Disraeli the crowning ambition of his remarkable 
career, it is certain that his own party has no excuse for opposing the 
slightest obstacle to his final success. Mr. Disraeli has frequently 
intimated, especially in the novels of his hot-headed youth, that the 
aristocracy,—the artificial nobles who possess the property plundered 
from the Nation by the consent of defunct Monarchs,—are the real 
natural leaders of the British people. But, in building up a party and 
constructing a Cabinet, he has been obliged to some extent to reverse 
the idea, and to make men sprung from the people the leaders of an 
aristocratic party, and the chief persons in a Cabinet actually crowded 
with dandy dummy Dukes. In looking over the prospective list of the 
new Ministry, as given by the leading London journals, one is struck 
by this mingling of two classes,—those who are overshadowed by their 
ancestry, and those whose names are made remarkable by their own 
achieveinents alone. Decidedly the new men have the best of it. In 
the first place, Mr. Disraeli has the Premiership, and everybody 
knows wdio he is; but does any British book of territorial aristocracy 


28 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


trace liim back beyond liis grandfather, exiled from V enice for fidelity 
to his faith ? Then, the Lord Chancellorship, the Exchequer, and 
the Home Office,—three of the most important posts,—are to be filled 
by men all sprung from the middle-classes; so that nobody can say that, 
when the dandy dummy Dukes and the determined Democrats now 
meeting at the Treasury, came to divide the spoil, the artificial nobles 
took the lion’s share, and left to the fresh men of common blood the 
inferior loaves and fishes. As a kind of nexus between these un-aris- 
tocratic officials and the higher grades of the Peerage, the Nation has 
an interesting element in the representatives of what are called “good 
comity families .” If Mr. Disraeli wishes now to know a Duke tho¬ 
roughly, he may approach the honor by degrees, and glide smoothly 
from small-brained baronets into the blissful presence of the dandiest 
dummy Dukes. How far it contributes to a man’s happiness to have 
proud Dukes for his official friends and fellow-counsellors it is not for 
me , an humble writer, to say; only one, “ gentleman of the press,”— 
Mr. Disraeli himself,—has attained that extraordinary felicity; and 
as yet he has not written his own memoirs. Well, then, as Mr. 
Disraeli looks around the Council table, and finds that wherever he 
turns his gaze, it lights upon a noble Duke,—I am not so sure of his 
sentiments as to be able to infer how very happy he must feel on 
account of his glittering surroundings. Who knows but even Dukes 
may probably pall upon the new Premier’s taste ? Can such things 
be ? Do sensible people ever get tired of talking to a Prince of the 
bluest blood ? Has any one ever yawned in the company of a Countess ? 
What is the real utility of worshiping State Idols ?—nick-named men ?— 
artificial nobles though loaded with glittering baubles ? The Duke of 
Buckingham ought to be prouder on account of his being Chairman of the 
London and North-Western than of his indirect descent from royalty; 
and his business experience is certainly of more value to the new 
Premier and the Nation than his blue gentle-blood. The Duke of Rich¬ 
mond— (though more positively a Scion of a recent royal house, and 
though in him the blue gentle-blood of the Second Charles is mingled 
with that of one of those “high-class unfortunate females" to whom Mr. 
Carlyle half-compassionately, lialf-contemptuously alludes)—may be 
of little real use to Mr. Disraeli. The Duke of Marlborough repre¬ 
sents, of course, the undying glory of the first wearer of the glittering 
nickname ; and in the Duke of Montrose, “ the great Marquis” is still 
brought before us in name. Why has not Lord Derby recommended 
to Manufacture Mr. Disraeli into a Duke ? 

But, even when the four Dukes are dismissed from view, the be¬ 
holder has not half exhausted the aristocratic character of Mr. Disraeli’s 
subordinates. Lord Stanley represents one of the highest territorial 
families in England ; the Marquis of Abercorn, Mr. Disraeli’s Viceroy 
in pilfered and insulted Ireland, is a triple Peer,—in England, Scot¬ 
land, and France; Lord Devon is of the family of Courtenay, said by 
Gibbon to bear the oldest surname in Europe. Is there any grand 
mysterious meaning in this fact,—any great moral principle of Political 
Science brought to view by this significant fact,—that a Cabinet led 
by our newest man,—but yesterday a mere political adventurer,— 
contains more gentle blood than almost any Cabinet of modern times? 
Can you not infer from it the extensive teachableness of the British 
aristocracy,—their readiness, at least, to accept the leadership of genius,— 
their recognition of mental power, when they see it displayed in political 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


29 


affairs, ratlier than in liorse-racing ? There certainly never was a 
person who owed less to family or connexions, or even to early friends, 
than Mr. Disraeli, the successful adventurer. He has carved his way 
upwards almost alone. The idea that Lord Georoe Bentinck helped 
him much is utterly absurd; that stout and stern-brained squire, who 
left horse-racing for the House of the Common men, and during his 
short political career made up by industry and audacious courage for 
what he wanted in knowledge or tact, owed a great deal to his more 
able Lieutenant; but there was no debt on the other side. And even 
in his later career Mr. Disraeli has to a great extent worked alone. 
The best and the worst qualities of his mental constitution are utterly— 
un-Britisli. He is never wanting in theory, and British-men always 
are. He has no mastery of dry details, and in these the keenest 
British-men,—politicians like Peel and Gladstone, —thoroughly de¬ 
light. He is fond of generalizing largely beyond the immediate ques¬ 
tions of the day, and in this the true British politician,—“ Content to 
dwell in present needs for ever,”—rarely indulges. All these alien 
characteristics of his mind make it the more surprising that he has 
acquired, and retained, the leadership of a party more deeply steeped 
than any other in old British prejudices. But his genius has carved 
the way. Of course, various incidents have helped. The death of Sir 
Kobert Peel removed the man, who, notwithstanding his desertions, 
would, if he had lived, have probably again led the Tory party. The 
death of Lord George Bentinck also took away a politician, who, on 
account of his gentle birth and fair average talent, would have j>ossibly 
taken the Premiership before him. But, after all, mere incidents don’t 
help incompetent men,—noodles, however blue or gentle their blood 
may be. Had not Mr. Disraeli possessed rare political ability, great 
perseverance, physical endurance to face year after year the hard work 
of the House of the Common men, no probabilities would have placed 
him where he is. What grand use will he make of his power ? How 
much further will he be able to go, in the way of reducing the vain 
conceits of the territorial aristocracy of Britain ? A short period of 
time may show. 

It may be very difficult to do justice to a cotemporary politician 
like Mr. Disraeli, but I have sometimes sincerely wished that the 
fairness and generous feeling always exhibited in British respectable 
newspapers and magazines when a distinguished man is ejected from 
the physical form, should occasionally be displayed while he is still 
among us residing in the bodily organization. The critical commenta¬ 
tors who declare that Mr. Disraeli is now Premier solely because he 
has been indefinitely unscrupulous do violence to Charity and Truth. Mr. 
Disraeli has been unscrupulous without measure; but his party lias 
been guilty more than once of manoeuvers that must have seemed to 
every careful observer like very sharp practice,—of disingenuous dodges 
that have elicited general censure and national rebuke. But,—W 7 hy 
should some critics attribute all Tory tricks to Mr. Disraeli, and yet 
give credit for inconsistent virtues,—chivalry, manliness, conscien¬ 
tiousness,—to his colleagues, the very companions of his every political 
act ? Why should the once poor Mr. Disraeli be a scapegoat for Tory 
Tricks, anil Lord Derby, Lord Stanley, and Mr. Walpole get off free 
of all blame ? Of course, every allowance must be made for peoiile 
who, while they swallowed all the bread-and-butter hidden in their 
pockets,—were perfectly astounded at the most uncommon bolt which 


30 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


Mr. Disraeli made last year of the sayings that he had uttered the 
year before. But, then, the bolting of past stale principles is only a 
simple process of degree and of time. Lord Cranborne and general 
Peel, considered by the State Idol worshipers models of consistency, 
declared in absence of sufficient public pressure in 1866, against all 
reduction of the Franchise ; yet in the presence of public pressure in 
1867, when in office, they both consented to the Ten Minutes Bill, 
reducing the Franchise to £6 rating,—Was that their unwavering 
fidelity to good old Toryism ? As to Lord Cranborne, I am quite sure 
that before his political career is closed he will have recanted every 
Tory vow he has ever made, and that his lordship will soon take up his 
position as a thorough active Liberal. It is easy for critics to discuss such 
things with one idea as their guide; to attribute changes in one politician 
to the purest motives, and in another to merely selfish personal aspira¬ 
tions : but ordinary critics cannot read the mental operations, they can 
only judge words and actions. In Mr. Disraeli is found what is unfor¬ 
tunately too common amongst politicians, a readiness to express during 
debate opinions that will help to a temporary success; but he is cer¬ 
tainly not the only statesman, although he is a very prominent offender, 
who could be contradicted by quoting his own words from “ Hansard.” 
If, indeed, critics had discerned in the new Premier an invariable 
readiness to adopt the opinions of his party, and pander to the preju¬ 
dices of the day, there might be more just cause of complaint; but, 
whatever other errors he may have, he does not always run with the 
current of the opinions of his time. He has often held firmly to 
unpopular views. He was one of the eulogists of Louis Napoleon’s when 
few men praised him. He spoke respectfully of the Church of Rome 
when three-fourths of the Tories reviled it. He was anti-Italian wdien 
nearly all Britain was on the other side. He was friendly and fair to 
the United States when ninety-nine out of every hundred Tories, and 
nearly all “ good society” in Britain, were Confederate in tone. I, of 
course, say nothing as to the character of the opinions thus held, or as 
to the foundational motives for holding and expressing them, but, at 
all events, he gave some proof of his distinct individuality, and of appa¬ 
rent independence, in adhering to them when they were decidedly any¬ 
thing but fashionable. It may be, however, that this assumable 
characteristic of his mind,—the apparent tenacity with which he pre¬ 
tends to hold some of his own supposed pet ideas,—is for a Prime 
Minister a very great defect: it may prove that he lacks sjunpathy 
with the progressive spirit of the Nation, and it may soon bring him 
into serious collision with popular opinion. But it is not altogether 
consistent with popular discrimination that mere “ successful scheming ” 
has made “ a man of the press'’ a Premier, and that Mr. Disraeli has 
outstripped so many artificially noble competitors solely because he 
was “ready to profess and practice any principles that would help him into 
power.” Such a shallow superficial verdict hardly becomes respectable 
British public writers of the present day. 

The combined causes which led to Lord Derby’s resignation might 
naturally justify any public writer to forget his Premiership, and to 
glance at him apart from his office; to dismiss for a moment ail the 
measures associated with his political life, and to think of him more 
immediately in the individual characteristics which greatly tinge the 
color of his career. Few men of the present age have so largely 
carried distinct personality into practical politics. Others will be 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


31 


remembered lor tlieir association with some particular principle,—some 
great fundamental measure,—some sweeping party policy; but much 
more than half of Lord Derby’s powerful influence sprang, not so much 
from what he has ever said or done, as from what he is by organization 
and the effects of external circumstances upon him through life. Quite 
independently of politics, he has always been, with the admirers of 
Aristocrats and State Idols, an eminently popular man. He is tho¬ 
roughly a territorial aristocrat, and always overflowing with cheap 
condescension. This it was that gave him a principal part of his great 
strength as a Tory leader. He was not only always amongst his 
admiring stand-still party, but condescended to be of them; and the 
result was certainly almost marvelous and extremely surprising. 
Neither the Duke of Wellington, — “who died doubly and went 
down,”—nor the never-to-be-forgotten Sir Robert Peel, could match 
Lord Derby in exciting devotional admiration and securing passive 
adherence. The pelf and power-loaded Duke of Wellington, —the 
trained arch man-killer, with all his military and personal man-killing 
reputation, could not conciliate his fawning followers when he changed 
his politics in 1829. The illustrious and patriotic Sir Robert Peel, 
failed to take his party with him when he conscientiously turned Free- 
Trader in 1846. But Lord Derby, by the great magnetic power of his 
gentle blood, did what no leader of a party of Tory aristocrats ever 
achieved before; after leading his passive and favored followers for 
long years in one crooked direction, full of obstructive barriers to 
National progress and prosperity, he very suddenly, at the special 
request and suggestion of the charming author of “Vivian Grey,” 
asked them to accompany him, like docile boys, in the directly opposite 
straight path, and, with a few snappish exceptions, they all “ stuck to 
their territorial Tory chief.” Making due allowance for those who 
were in any way tempted by their need or greed of the loaves and 
fishes, a wonderful fact was presented to the Nation,—a legion cf 
well-to-do county aristocrats,'—Soil-Lords great and small, or the 
servile nominees of the possessors of the people’s public property, many 
of them entirely uninterested in patronage, accepting their leader’s word 
and submissively and silently voting as white, what up to the evening 
before they had all counted black. The secret cause of this is to be 
found in the nature of the man,—in the free familiar manifestations of 
the territorial aristocrat. Lord Derby has always been very frank, and 
especially with his followers. Lord Derby’s Brain is much larger in 
the region of the Love-of-Approbation than in that of Self-Esteem. 
He is a very superior organization when compared to Lord Russell. 
He made no mystery of the leadership, and he never announced to the 
House any change of which he had not already informed his party; so 
that had they desired to rebel they had ample opportunity to set up 
the standard of revolt. Secondly, he always declared that he would 
not hold office except he were cordially supported by his favored party,— 
a declaration that placed the game in their own hands. Thirdly, he 
set a very high value on the cordial friendship and approval of his 
colleagues,-—too high, indeed, when it is remembered that, to retain 
Lord Cranborne and General Peel, he adopted under the force of 
pressure the absurd Ten Minutes’ Bill; but this part of his character 
gained him extensive good-will, if it cost him the reduction of repute 
for political wisdom. 

There is much in Lord Derby’s earlier career which his present 


32 THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 

cotemporaries have forgotten. He was Chief Secretary for Ireland 
under Lord Grey, and was distinguished for hard work; he was also 
well inclined to he Liberal towards the newly Emancipated Roman 
Catholics. But he came unavoidably into personal collision with the 
Leader of the Irish people, the great O’Connell. “ The Mighty Irish 
Liberator,” as he was emphatically designated, had many gigantic 
and good qualities, hut he had one damning dark fault; he pushed 
political vituperation to an excess in which he was literally unsur¬ 
passed. It is hardly too much to say that O’Connell’s unsparing and 
repeated attacks drove,—the born aristocrat,—Lord Derby, into the 
arms of the Irish No-Surrender Protestants; and there is, moreover, 
no doubt that this early hostility to the great national Leader of the 
Irish Roman Catholics did much to color his whole after career. Lord 
Derby started in life as a thorough Liberal,—of the limited length and 
breadth of the period,—audit is quite possible that he might have been, 
years ago, one of the leaders of the Liberal section of the Whigs, had 
lie hut remained with his earlier friends. He belonged to the Ministry 
that carried the first Reform Bill of 1832, though he was not in the 
Cabinet, and took very little share in the conduct of the measure. To 
this part of his career, however, belong two measures of undying 
importance : he was Colonial Secretary when the West India negroes 
were set free ; he was Secretary for Ireland when National Education 
was introduced. An ordinary public man might rest his title to fame 
on two such remarkable achievements. His secession from the Liberals 
was principally caused by the resolve of the party to redistribute the 
revenues of the Irish State Church, so as to assist Education. The 
resolution was a hone of contention for four years, and ultimately the 
idea had to be given up; but it produced one permanent result,—the 
Liberal party lost in the great territorial aristocrat Lord Derby, a very 
influential champion for exciting the unmeasured admiration of State 
Idol worshipers and sycophants. He was even then, probably, the 
best debater in the House of the Common men, clear in statement, 
simple in style, always using homely Saxon words, hut weaving them 
in an exquisite pattern of his own, fiery in tone and marvelously apt 
at retort and repartee. Here he again encountered O’Connell, and 
the readers of the tame Parliamentary debates of the present day should 
study the newspapers of that time to see what the House of Common 
men warfare at its fiercest can he. Even the dull pages of Hansard 
glow with the fiery interjections and the flaming interruptions that 
O’Connell, then in the zenith of his fame, flashed forth and provoked. 
Speeches as denunciatory of England as the incriminated articles of 
some Dublin papers of the present day, were of course saluted with 
indignant shouts, but were finished and flashed forth in the rich mind- 
reacliing tones of the great Irishman, as he tried successfully to outshoot 
his many assailants, whom as a rule he managed to put down. Yet 
sometimes they had their little lengths of revenge. Hardly had the 
Irish Liberator ceased when Lord Stanley would start to his feet, his 
rising hailed with ringing aristocratic cheers; and would delight his 
gentle-blooded party and avenge England, the conqueror of Ireland, by 
a torrent of oratorical reply, every sentence having its sting, every word 
barbed, and the whole emphasized by his unconcealed contempt for, 
and fierce hatred of, the “ honorable and learned Irish gentleman.’’ 
Those who remember with pleasure the intense and hot interest of the 
great word-figlits of those days may almost he inclined to regret that 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


33 


there are no such single combats to-day; but such politicians are too 
apt to forget that the unseemly rivalry between Mr. O’Connell, the 
large-brained, profoundly serious, and naturally noble Irish champion, 
and the artificially noble Lord Stanley, the patron of liorse-racing, 
stopped all beneficial Irish legislation for a quarter of a century, and 
that, whoever won, Ireland and England lost. O’Connell, indeed, 
also lived to have his revenge, although, stricken with his fatal illness, 
he hardly enjoyed it. In 1845 Lord Derby introduced an excellent 
Tenant-Right Bill for Ireland, so liberal and so just that no succeeding 
Bill has surpassed it,—so liberal and so just that the gilded high 
Chamber of the Soil-Gods of Britain, called the House of the Lords, 
of course, threw it out. When he next seceded from a Ministry, Lord 
Derby carried a party with him. He was the Lord Cranborne of Peel’s 
Cabinet; but his followers were at least two hundred. Even then it 
was somewhat doubtful whether he was thoroughly in principle an 
out-and-out Protectionist. He thought, however, that Free-Trade was 
the proper work of a Liberal, not of a Tory Cabinet, and to please his 
territorial friends he refused to remain. Everybody knows his subse¬ 
quent career,—it is so very near,—his small and defeated Reform Bill of 
1859, his gradually great and successful measure of 18G7. These are 
ashes which will not be stirred just now; under them still live their 
wonted fires. 

It will be observed that the two chief legislative achievements of 
Lord Derby’s long career were accomplished when he was the colleague 
of Lord Grey. The Irish System of National Education has been 
always associated with his name, and his more recent followers have 
long since forgotten or probably never put themselves in possession of 
the fact, that he introduced the measure by which several Irish 
bishoprics w T ere very properly suppressed. As Secretary for the Co¬ 
lonies, he was the organ of the Cabinet in carrying the abolition of 
slavery, and the grant of £20,000,000 to the planters of the West 
Indies and of Mauritius, for their cessation to be dealers in human 
flesh. During the same period he was one of the most powerful 
speakers in the House of the Common men, and he was especially 
conspicuous as the daring and formidable antagonist of the late great 
Mr. O’Connell. The phrase of “ alliterative abuse,” by which the great 
Irish Liberator avenged himself for constant vexation and apparent 
defeat, has been frequently quoted as a proof that Mr. Stanley was at 
the time referred to both acrimonious and extremely unpopular. An 
offensive, but at the same time a very significant nickname was the 
inevitable result of any unfair conflict with the great O’Connell or 
with the famous Cobbett. The popular orators of the present day may 
be as eloquent as either of those politicians of the days of other years, 
and probably, equally honest and sincere in promoting the cause of 
human progress, but they no longer appeal so constantly to the hu¬ 
morous instincts of their followers. Having never been in liis later 
years very conspicuous for either political forethought or for desirable 
prudence, Lord Derby has probably not felt any serious remorse for 
occasional outbursts of violence, and the abuse of better men than 
himself in his youth. 

Lord Stanley’s secession from the callous Whigs on the question 
of the Appropriation Clause proved to be the first step in a natural 
transition to the purest form of party Toryism. In 1834 he still held 
back from a coalition with Sir Robert Peel ; but as the memory of the 


I 


34 THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 

Reform contest faded in the distance, he gradually became the staunch 
ally of his former opponent. The great knowledge and capacity of his 
mentally progressed chief reduced him,—the re-actionary gentle-blooded 
aristocrat,—to the rank of a subordinate in the Cabinet ot 1841 ; but 
is Peel gradually inclined to more Liberal opinions and comprehensive 
views, the hopes of the Tories were fixed on their zealous convert, 
and when the party was split in two by the repeal of the Corn-Laws, 
Lord Stanley naturally succeeded to the post of leader of the stupid 
stand-still-heads, which he has, with the requisite assistance of his 
Lieutenant, held without much dispute. Both from his own mental 
development, and in conformity with the aristocratic traditions of his 
generation, he has been always inclined,—indeed, determined,—to 
make the predominance of his party his principal object. Sir Robert 
Peel, with a cooler temperament,—with a superior organization, 
derived from better parental conditions,—and with a more comprehen¬ 
sive and a larger development of Benevolence and Conscientiousness, 
although he had formed a party and secured a majority with unex¬ 
ampled skill, used his supremacy, as soon as he had attained it, 
exclusively for the benefit of the Nation. Lord Derby, like the “No 
Popery” man Lord Russell, always considered a Parliamentary victory 
rather as a coveted personal prize than as a grand condition of prac¬ 
tical political activity, and a means of progressive utility. Mr. Glad¬ 
stone has well learned the lesson which was taught by the noble 
example of the great master-minded Peel, in looking solely to Ad¬ 
ministrative and legislative utility, without stopping from time to time 
to count his forces. It was not till Sir Robert Peel had formed a great 
party of the most developed men around him, and hopelessly defeated 
Opposition, that he began his fruitful course of economical measures. 
Lord Russell, though he was not altogether devoid of patriotic feeling, 
sincerely identified the success of liis party with the welfare of the 
Nation,—that is, took it for granted that the success of himself and 
his party constituted an important element of national prosperity. 
Lord Derby, not probably believing profoundly in the efficiency of 
aristocratic legislation, seems in later years to have regarded political 
contests between Tories and Whigs as lie may have thought of his cotem- 
poraneous efforts at Ascot and Newmarket. Although he was to some 
extent personally indifferent to the possession of office on the mere 
account of its emoluments, still he liked to win for himself and his 
associates ; and his occasional triumphs and partial success have been 
somewhat analogous to the questionable victories of a second com¬ 
petitor in a race, on the mere technical disqualification of a speedier 
rival. Although he has been three times Prime Minister, Lord Derby 
has never commanded anything like a majority in the House of the 
Common men, and on each occasion he has succeeded to office as a 
kind of an inevitable alternative. His first appointment w r as caused 
by Lord John Russell’s petulant blunder in quarrelling with the 
cunning, time-serving trickster Lord Palmerston, and his second by 
Lord Palmerston’s reckless abuse of the apparent security to which he 
seemed to have attained when his supporters swept the constituencies 
at the general election of 1857. On the third occasion Lord Derby 
was indebted to Mr. Gladstone’s awkward acquiescence in Lord Rus¬ 
sell’s 'penurious Wliiggery, for the opportunity of attempting to retrieve 
his former failures. A majority of eighty stand-stills bequeathed by 
Lord Palmerston to his successors, had, by the unskilful manceuvers 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


35 


of Lord Russell during a few months, become hopelessly clubbed into 
a formidable obstruction, and Lord Derby, with the indispensable 
assistance of Mr. Disraeli, bad only, without any resistance, to enter 
upon and occupy an undefended position. 

It may not be yet the proper time to discuss Lord Derby’s latest 
political acts, designed and shaped by Mr. Disraeli, except so far as 
be lias himself explained bis own motives. With perfect candor,— 
with unreserved defiance,—and with evident unconsciousness of the 
extremely questionable nature of bis defiant avowal, be lias frequently 
stated, with the coolness of an intolerable aristocratic domination, that 
be bad determined not to be ejected from office a third time on the 
issue which bad proved fatal to bis two former Administrations. 
Political Moralists of another school might properly bold that twenty 
abdications or expulsions from power were indefinitely preferable to an 
entire change of political principles and conduct; but the ingenious 
Mr. Disraeli could easily devise an apology for proceedings which 
seemed to the simpler mind of the great aristocratic Lord Derby, to 
require no elaborate excuse. On many former occasions be lias dis¬ 
played very imperfect moral sensitiveness to considerations which 
would have restramed more cautious Statesmen, if not from doubtful 
and defiant acts, at least from unnecessary declarations of profound 
insolence towards the progressive spirit of the age. Carelessness and 
laxity of expression are very great defects in Statesmen, and yet the 
tyrannical temper which they indicate is in itself not unpopular 
amongst aristocrats of gentle blood. Perfect art, in political discussion 
as elsewhere, conceals itself, combining impenetrable thoughts with an 
open countenance ; but an occasional burst of aristocratic recklessness 
in minor matters repels confidence less than a minutely ostentatious 
anxiety to avoid all cause of offence by concealing motives and smooth 
expressions. It seemed somewhat natural that an orator like Lord 
Derby who was always vigorous and often witty should sometimes 
deviate into defiant rashness, knowing be bad a sharp and biting- 
tongued instrument like Mr. Disraeli at bis back always ready for 
action offensive and defensive. I have known an author praise the 
Earl of the Turf for thirteen pages together, though I am sure he knew 
nothing of him, but that be bad plenty of money to spare, if be could 
be induced to part with it. This author made Lord Derby intelligent, 
wise, just, pious, and highly benevolent, for no cause in the world, but 
in hopes to find him charitable. Mr. Pendrive gave the Earl a most 
bountiful development of the Organ of Benevolence, because be himself 
bad a most empty stomach and a thinly-covered back. This practice 
being general among a certain class of public writers, it is a very easy 
matter to guess, by the length and breadth of the panegyric,—that is, 
by the size of the xiraise bestowed,—bow wealthy the expected patron 
may be, or bow hungry the author really is. When I see a long list 
of rare excellencies and of distinguished talents crammed down an 
artificial nobleman’s throat, who lias no right to them, I am not at all 
surprised, because I am sure it is not meant as an encomium upon bis 
artificial honor, but merely a direct declaration of the author’s wants,— 
indeed, a heavy complaint of nakedness and hunger by Mr. Pendrive. 

Nearly all the current comments on Lord Derby’s political life, 
career, and character are written in a very friendly spirit and style. 
His defects are, however, as conspicuous as Lord Russell’s peevish 
perversities; but they are far less irritating, probably because they 

c 


36 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


really seem to be less willful. Lord Russell is very strongly tinted 
with aristocratic vanity and with the conventional insolence of his 
order. The arrogance of the “No Popery” Lord Russell arises, no 
doubt, from the extreme development of his Self-Esteem , well fed and 
perpetually supported by the idea that he is really the son of a Duke. 
Criticisms on Lord Russell almost always betray the feelings which 
are naturally provoked by a certain narrow-minded self-complacency 
which has been invariably exhibited both in his wiser and his less 
wise acts. Lord Derby, on the contrary, whatever may have been the 
faults of his career, has not been either extremely egotistical or sophis- 
tically shallow. One of Lord Derby’s claims to popularity has always 
rested on the fact of his undeviating fondness of horses. And it has 
always been conventionally understood throughout England, that an 
excessive familiarity with the stable induces a peculiar laxity of prin¬ 
ciple and practice, which is more agreeable to the general taste of the 
territorial aristocracy than mere puritanical pretensions and pompous 
strictness. Lord Derby has always received the praises of his party 
and followers as a just tribute to his ideal greatness, and not as the 
mere expressions of needy dependents upon his expected patronage and 
support. Subordinate persons,—common organisms,—establish no 
additional title to overflowing respect by engaging in the fluctuating 
speculations of the Turf; but an artificially noble Prime Minister who 
keeps a racing stud, conciliates aristocratic public feeling by the implied 
admission that he pretends to be no better, nor more civilized than his 
territorial neighbors. A certain sharpness which is studiously culti¬ 
vated and carried to excess in the betting ring, is the only intellectual 
quality which a very large majority of the British aristocracy either 
understand or value. Lord Derby is extremely capable of chuckling 
at the oversight of an adversary, or even at a minor display of slender 
ingenuity on his own part; but as in greater matters he has never 
been a cunning or tricky intriguer like the late Lord Palmerston, his 
little triumphs in debate or management are generally further rewarded 
by the unmeasured applause of idiotic bystanders,—by the humble 
homage of the State Idol worshipers. Probably the most popular of 
all Lord Derby’s compound gifts, consists in the aggregate of unpaid 
for advantages which he enjoys as proofs of the iniquitous legislation 
of former times. A virtuous hard-working man struggling with the 
adversity of unjust laws, is a sight for the contemplation of even the 
Lords and Gods of despotism itself; but gentle-blooded men take far more 
pleasure in watching her favorites catching the smiles of “ Dame For¬ 
tune.” The combination of iniquitous incidents that placed the horse¬ 
racing Prime Minister at the head of a wealthy family of high artificial 
rank and ancient lineage, secured the unbounded sympathy of social 
equals and awed the ambition of intellectual rivals. In some respects, 
Lord Derby had a fair start with competitors of humbler station, for the 
artificial rank which provides exceptional opportunities, at the same 
time diminishes the stimulus to the necessary exertion for the acqui¬ 
sition of greatness. If success had been less easy and less early, Lord 
Derby would probably have studied social and political questions more 
deeply, though it may be doubted whether increased wisdom and more 
extensive knowledge would have strengthened the confidence of his 
stupid-headed party. 

Lord Derby’s public career, which has been one of no ordinary 
length and distinction, lias been at last brought to a close. The alleged 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


37 


cause of liis withdrawal into privacy is the precarious state of his 
health, but for a long time past his mind has, evidently, not been in 
his work, which was, I have little doubt, caused by the defections from 
his party of some of its best men,—by the rapid growth of popular 
demands,—by the increasing determination to uproot acknowledged 
wrongs, and by the shilly-shally policy of his Indispensable chief 
Lieutenant. After a good deal of intrigue, planning, and plotting to 
perpetuate the Premiership in the hands of the blue-blood Aristocracy, 
Mr. Disraeli had to be gazetted to the vacant post of pay and honor. 
The Nation will now have Mr. Disraeli, the Tory indispensable , for 
Lord Derby, as the First Lord of the Treasury, it being stated that the 
great Earl of the Turf, at last, recommended Mr. Disraeli to the 
Queen in the warmest terms. The knowledge of this fact will, no 
doubt, remove many of the new Prime Minister’s difficulties with his 
colleagues and his subjugated party. Few people can believe that 
Mr. Disraeli would last Session have been able to Educate the Tories 
to adopt Household Suffrage had it not been through the personal influ¬ 
ence of Lord Derby. So long as he w r as the head of the Government, 
many of the most stubborn,—because most stupid,—Tories considered 
themselves safe in consenting to what was really a Democratic measure 
of Reform. They will now consent to Mr. Disraeli’s Premiership, 
through Lord Derby’s personal influence. I observe that the Times 
is favorable to Mr. Disraeli’s elevation. The leading journal remarks 
that “ the Statesman honored with the duty of re-forming the Ministry 
has fairly won the high place he occupies. Nor could Mr. Disraeli 
have accepted a lower place without a loss of dignity, which would have 
been unworthy of himself, and discreditable to his party.” Years suffi¬ 
cient to reduce youth to old age have gone by,—have recorded them¬ 
selves upon the never-returning past,—since the articled Pupil of a 
very humble Solicitor, who occupied a dingy office in the Old Jewu-y, 
London, experienced a splendid day-dream, and wrote a very remark¬ 
able book, in which a strange extravagance of fancy was curiously 
combined with a rare exuberance of genius. There w T as drawn in 
this very curious work of fiction a character, that v r ould have been 
absurdly grotesque, were it not invested with the charms of which 
poetry and romance are the fruitful parents. The book was regarded 
as the production of a highly-heated and half-disordered imagination,— 
or of an extreme development of the mental Organs of Ideality, Hope , 
Acquisitiveness, and Constructiveness. It w T as read, cast aside, re-printed, 
re-edited, laughed at, quoted, referred to, occasionally praised, and 
frequently censured, yet it never wholly lost its hold upon public 
attention. Occasionally the life and fortunes of its author invested it 
with a sort of half-prophetical importance, but no one thought that 
time would have witnessed the realization of the da} T -dream which 
obscure and untutored ambition indulged in. Yet this sober year of 
1868 has witnessed the sudden and unexpected fulfillment of the long¬ 
ings, the hopes, and the triumphs of “Vivian Grey.” Mr. Disraeli, — 
the Educator, and Successful Conqueror of the stupid-headed, stubborn 
Tories,—is Prime Minister of Britain. From a comparatively low- 
station,—from a position which imparted to his career neither eclat 
nor influence,—he has risen to the proudest place which a citizen can 
occupy in a nation abounding w r itli State Idols, State Idol Worshipers, 
out-door-relieved royal paupers , and legions of aristocratic do-notliings, — 
and has risen by the mere force of an ability as versatile as it was 


38 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


vigorous,—as patient as it was laborious. Were Mr. Disraeli the 
accepted leader of an advanced or revolutionary party; were lie one 
of the men who step out of the ranks of the people to take a vacant 
place in the progressive efforts of the age, and thus answer the call of 
destiny, his success would not cause much surprise.. But nearly all 
through his political life he adhered to the party of restriction, the 
possessors of public plunder, and of exclusive privilege. After fluc¬ 
tuating over the debatable ground which met liis cautious gaze, when 
he entered Parliament, he chose a place apparently the most adverse 
that a man in his circumstances could select, and from that place he 
has, in spite of the most overpowering obstacles, been able to achieve 
the most signal and celebrated triumphs. He served, and by cun¬ 
ningly serving, commanded. He aided, and by aiding, controlled 
prejudice. He acknowledged, and by acknowledging with apparent 
awe, beat down caste. He made himself particularly useful as a 
servant, and rose gradually to the post of master. Indispensable to his 
party as a defender and a barking biter of their opponents, he has 
become indispensable to them as a leader, and to the able, unwearied, 
ingenious, and it may be added, unscrupulous politician, the haughtiest 
aristocracy of Europe now tender extorted obedience and involuntary 
veneration. The serried ranks of the Tories, so impervious to plebeian 
invasion and untitled influence, have at last succumbed to the enemy, 
against whom they swore perpetual hostility; and the tact and perse¬ 
verance of a single man has effected a change, which, a year ago, 
seemed impossible of attainment, Great, indeed, must be the political 
conversion of the men who have accepted an alien by birth and creed 
for their leader; or, probably, it would be more correct to say, great 
must be the pressure which has enforced such a necessity. Coronets are 
of no importance; glittering gaudy baubles are contemptible; the long 
line of rank sinks into insignificance; hereditary power is worthless; 
the age is inexorable, and it must have realities for its requirements. 
This is literally the moral lesson of Mr. Disraeli’s elevation. For 
years he has been the life and the spirit of the stupid-headed party 
with which he was identified. Even the vigor, the territorial and 
Turf-influence of the House of Stanley, were unavailing without the 
more gigantic Jewish element,—without “ the sharp spears and flaming 
swords' of Mr. Disraeli. The rank-and-file of obedient followers 
were as sheep without a shepherd when his voice did not command 
them. As much envied as respected ; more feared than loved by the 
aristocracy, they had to acknowledge in him the supremacy of mental 
power, and in making the acknowledgment had to surrender, as ab¬ 
jectly as under the stern rule of merciless conquest, the prerogatives, the 
assumptions, and, above all, the usurped authority which were part and 
parcel of their privileged existence. A few months will prove whether 
the quiet revolution that has been apparently consummated, is real 
or otherwise. If the Tories prove obedient to the new Premier; if 
rank, and wealth, and obstinacy, and stupidity submit themselves to 
his guidance, it may be truly said that in a single year Britain has 
advanced farther in the path of progress than any other Nation of the 
age upon the beautiful Earth,—the rightful property, not of a few 
Soil-Lords, but of the whole human family. 

!“" But is the change implied in this sudden elevation of Mr. Disraeli,— 
the artful adventurer,—to the post of Premier, a natural and enduring 
one? Have the anxiety for political power, the necessity for help, 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


39 


the compulsion to rely on the only available assistance, nothing to do 
with the remarkable transformation ?—and will there he consistency 
enough in the Tory ranks to endure reflection, and fortitude enough to 
bear with what will he regarded as humiliation ? Time will answer 
these questions. But before looking at the probabilities of the future, 
it is'a duty to pay homage to circumstances of the present, however 
transient they may prove. It is a duty to admire the genius which 
has soared so rapidly to such a dazzling height of power, and which, 
unaided and unabashed, spreads its pennons on the pinnacle of great¬ 
ness as on its natural resting-place. It is a duty to admire the Spirit 
of Government, which accepts, whether willingly or unwillingly, the 
authority of talent, and ignores in its presence the assumptions to 
which tradition and prejudice give an old and venerable sanction. 
Whatever opinion men may entertain of Mr. Disraeli’s consistency, of 
his sincerity, or of his motives, there can be no controversy about the 
ability with which he has carried out the career of honor and fame 
which has placed within liis grasp the richest prize his ambition could 
aspire to. Nor is it impossible,—should he continue in balance,—that 
the splendor of his position may be eclipsed by the brilliancy of his 
achievements. In dealing with Parliamentary Reform, Mr. Disraeli 
has shown his capacity for appreciating the true political bearings of 
the times,—the nature and extent of the pressure of popular demands. 
As Democratic in sentiment and feeling as, probably, the foremost 
Liberal of the age, his professions are evidently only a party badge, 
which can be adopted or laid aside as circumstances may warrant, and 
his own interests suggest. He has no hereditary political faith to 
cherish,—no old Tory tenets to uphold,—no venerable despotic doc¬ 
trine to transmit to posterity. A free-thinker when he entered the 
field of politics, he continues to be so still, even when he is master of 
the situation. If he be as anxious to retain power as he was energetic 
in acquiring it; if he be as pliant and politic as a leader as he was 
prudent and ingenious as a teacher, he may long keep his grasp upon 
the helm which has been so unexpectedly confided to his keeping, and 
may steer the bark of Government to the goal to which some political 
pilot must guide it soon. The great questions of the Session will 
necessarily be Irish ones. It is impossible to keep them in abeyance, 
and equally impossible to deal,with them in a narrow and ungenerous 
spirit. If the principles enunciated by Mr. Disraeli in the fervor 
of his youthful aspirations, are recognized by him in the fulfillment 
of his expectations, he may,— should he continue perfectly sober, 
and bear prosperity coolly,— accomplish truly great results. No 
man has levelled at the “ Established State Church Robbery of 
Ireland” such scathing denunciations; no man has more strenuously 
advocated its abolition. He is also wise enough to see the necessity of 
a sweeping change in the “Land-Laws”; wise enough to see the neces¬ 
sity of conciliating the Irish people;—wise enough to know what 
measures they need;—wise enough to devise the plan and the means 
by which disaffection arising from wrongs can be eradicated, and peace 
and contentment secured; and if he really have power over his party— 
if he be not a mere make-shift or an automaton, he may perform a 
greater political miracle than Reform, by sweeping away the abuses 
which are the danger and the degradation of Ireland. The power 
assigned to Mr. Disraeli can be used for the advantage of liis party 
and the empire. There are no scruples to mar his efficiency; if he has 


40 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


not sufficient conscientiousness to discharge a duty, he has the intelli¬ 
gence to appreciate a necessity,—to yield constitutionally to an irresis¬ 
tible popular pressure. In a Statesman,—surrounded with State Idol 
worshipers,—the latter quality may be the more practically useful 
one; and if the new Premier do as much for Ireland as in his anxiety 
for power and pelf he did for England, the Irish people will have no 
cause to regret the circumstances which gave him the opportunity of 
repairing, through even a selfish motive, some of the many wrongs for 
which his party are responsible. If the people of Ireland would sacri¬ 
fice their religious dissensions and political differences on the altar of 
their common country, and demand as one man their rights of their 
rulers, their voice would be heard, their grievances redressed, their 
wants supplied, and their demands granted. Ireland, as you are aware, 
is blessed with a rich soil, a mild and healthy climate, ample resources 
for industry in Agriculture, Commerce, and Manufactures, and inha¬ 
bited by a population equal in physical, intellectual, and moral quali¬ 
fication to Englishmen and Scotchmen; and yet with a fertile soil, a 
healthy climate, wonderful industrial resources, and a hard-working, 
thrifty, and moral people, she is one of the poorest nations in Euroj)e. 
An average emigration of 70,000 annually is a portent in history, and 
the inevitable result of a vicious land-code and the clearance system. 
If our British Statesmen and Soil-Lords kept the people at home, by 
giving them employment, Ireland would soon have a different state of 
things. Millions of acres of unreclaimed land, rivers and lakes admi¬ 
rably suited for internal commerce, unworked mines, neglected manu¬ 
factures, commodious harbors, in which, with a few exceptions, a 
trading vessel is seldom seen, form a wide field of enterprise for Irish¬ 
men who have abundance of gold lying idle in banks. While States¬ 
men and the public Press should steadfastly and earnestly advocate the 
development of Irish industrial resources, there are three questions,— 
the settlement of which is of paramount importance to the public,— 
which should constantly engage their attention. Till the relations 
between Soil-Lord and Tenant are satisfactorily adjusted; till Educa¬ 
tion is placed on such a footing as to meet the wants and wishes of the 
great majority of the population; till the Church Establishment is 
abolished, and the temporalities converted to useful and national pur¬ 
poses,—in a word, till these three questions are finally settled on the 
broad principle of equal justice to all,—Ireland can never expect to be 
a peaceful, contented, and happy country. These are the canker-worms 
that prey upon the vitals of the Irish' nation., and destroy all social 
union, and that impede the physical, intellectual, moral, and political 
progress of the population. 

The elevation of Mr. Disraeli to the first place in the British Go¬ 
vernment lias,, of course, given rise to many sharp ransacking criti¬ 
cisms. It is just as easy to construct a generous panegyric as to 
compose a sharp, biting philippic on the new Premier’s past career; 
and it is not necessary for an impartial public writer to relapse into a 
despairing mood, and to deny that political virtue and vice have any 
substantial existence, or any influence in the production of beneficial 
results, if it is carefully remembered that there is much truth and as 
much falsehood both in the unmeasured eulogies and the invectives to 
which the author of “Vivian Grey” has been lately subjected. No 
doubt there is something peculiarly engaging, extremely interesting, 
if not almost noble, in the mere contemplation of a strong plebeian 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


41 


intellect, long sustained by a stern, inflexible will, steadily forecasting a 
distant and difficult triumph, conquering social embarrassments, and 
living down disqualifications of birth, of fortune, and of race, gathering 
secret strength from humiliating failure, and, by a dexterous combina¬ 
tion of scheming suppleness and arrogant audacity, moulding like paste 
a fierce hereditary aristocracy into passive instruments of personal 
ambition. The Tory party, however, made a bad bargain when they 
engaged the supple services of Mr. Disraeli. He did their dirty work of 
badgering Sir Robert Peel with all the slanderous venom that their 
malignity could desire, but they placed themselves under a master 
when they contemplated the purchase of a sharp-tongued slave. For 
years he kept them together, and gave them a semblance of power; but 
when they attempted to govern the Nation upon their own stale prin¬ 
ciples, they found themselves inveigled in snares, entangled in diffi¬ 
culties, and finally compelled to agree to propositions which they 
devoted their lives to oppose. The retirement of Lord Derby, —the 
distinguished patron of the Turf,—left them no choice but to accept 
their betrayer for their chief, and he has again and again placed them 
in a position of humiliation and defeat. As there is but one step from 
the sublime to the ridiculous, so there is, at least now and then, but a 
single stage from the ridiculous to the sublime. Such a career as Mr. 
Disraeli’s, had it not terminated in triumph, would have been a good 
joke ; as it is, the sweeping success spoils the satire which treats of this 
wondrous tale of adventure. What has been frequently said respecting 
the possible designs of Total-Self-Existence in permitting the prosperity 
of the unjust,—the wicked, the vile,—in order to give forcible illustra¬ 
tion of the small value of excessive wealth, may, by the envious and 
malevolent, be transferred to political distinction, and those who envy 
and hate,—the once poor,—Mr. Disraeli, may imagine they see in Ids 
rise to unexampled prosperity a conspicuous proof and example of how 
small estimation is mere success in the eye of Mother Nature, by bestow¬ 
ing it on the most untrustworthy of all British Statesmen. But, after 
all, the occasion scarcely justifies these virtuous heroics. Mr. Disraeli 
is neither so much above nor so much below ordinary precedent or 
rule. He is indeed simply a very clever person, employing his clever¬ 
ness often to originate, and always to use great opportunities. His 
great speciality, as the saying is, consists in not being too clever, or 
rather his peculiar gift is in discovering and realizing the exact point 
at which his cleverness is just beginning to run away with him. 
There have been several epochs in his curious career when he was on 
the very verge of destroying his own influence, and of fatally ruining 
his probabilities of promotion for ever; but he had the rare power cf 
seeing this, as well as by-standers, and his masterly retreats from por¬ 
tions of himself, and his manceuvers in the face of his own repeated 
blunders, are, in a certain sense, the most remarkable features of his 
political strategy,— of his frequent paltry juggling, and evasive shuffling. 
Mr. Disraeli, or rather a certain portion of him, may often be an 
enigma to most people; but there has always been one who under¬ 
stood every region of his mental constitution,—every organ and every 
group of organs in his peculiar Brain, and that was Mr. Disraeli, the 
author of “Vivian Grey.” When he failed in the House of the Com¬ 
mon men, and ventured upon the audacious insolence of prophesying 
his own success; when he measured swords, or rather exchanged 
ribaldry, with the great and mighty O’Connell, spattering the Irish 


42 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


Liberator with his slimy vituperation, in return for the severity that 
analyzed him; when he ventured on the measureless impudence of affect¬ 
ing to persuade the great Tory party, as well as Lord George Bentinck 
himself, that the said great horse-racing man was a magnificent states¬ 
man ;—when he selfislily took advantage of the exasperation of the 
Tory Soil-Lords to make a position for himself by ceaselessly worrying 
and insulting Sir Robert Peel ; even when he soared to the sublime,— 
boast shall it be termed, or confession ?—that for eight long years he 
had been a secret convert to the semi-Democratic doctrine of House¬ 
hold Suffrage, and that he and his territorial chief colleague had during 
that period been 'privately and secretly Education their party into accept¬ 
ing a policy which all the time they were publicly denouncing as the 
wildest frenzy of revolution,—in each and every one of these perilous 
phases of his career Mr. Disraeli watched the rising movements of the 
public pressure-tide,—the patient forbearance of the down-trodden 
millions, and thoroughly knew himself in every department of his 
complicated Brain. And to know one’s-self implies a perception of 
self-ignorance and of the vanity which accompanies ignorance, and of 
the peculiar ignorance which runs side by side with extreme ambition 
and inordinate selfishness. To know one’s-self is, as a general rule, 
the surest way to know something of other people, and from the most 
intimate experience of Mr. Disraeli, the poor gentleman of the Press, 
Mr. Disraeli, the smart successful party leader, has gained a very 
large insight into everybody else, or at least into everybody similarly 
organized or possessing the same type of Brain as the author of 
“ Vivian Grey.” Mr. Disraeli managed and marshalled his party 
because he first had acquired the Science and the Art of knowing and 
managing himself. Mr. Disraeli is a very profound Phrenologist as 
well as a very polished and flexible politician. He also knows a good 
deal about that most marvelous Science called Electro-Biology, and 
has, indeed, operated with singular success for many years upon the 
stupid party. It is, moreover, in the study of man, as in Comparative 
Anatomy. Given a bone, and an expert can build up a complicated 
skeleton. Given a whole and entire man,—whatever may be the pro¬ 
portions and arrangements of the different regions of his Brain,—and 
you have a fair sample of ordinary humanity. There are, of course, 
ill-generated, ill-born individualities thrown into society, by inferior 
parental conditions,—faultless monsters and exceptional varieties of 
character, tending here and there to an excess—as of virtue so of vice— 
impracticable day-dreamers, builders of “ Castles in the air,” and wliat 
are called consistent men,—defiant men, furious fanatics, or foaming- 
fools, who believe in stationary views, or stand-still opinions, in ancient 
traditions, in definite conclusions of class legislation, in the local con¬ 
victions of Soil-Lords, in Tory moralities, in expedient principles, in 
fashionable verities, and all that sort of things, or even in party 
straightforwardness, and in pelf-hunting, conscientiousness, and fidelity; 
but Mr. Disraeli knows well, by his internal self-reflector, that the 
political world,—steeped in controlling circumstances,—is not made 
up of these characters,—that the men who surround him are not 
uniformly composed of these peculiar elements. And most assuredly 

he has had sufficient strength of mind to act upon his knowledge,_to 

reduce his perceptions of possibilities to practice. This strength,_ 

blended with audacity and excessive presumption,—is not given to or 
found in the possession of every man. It may be safely asserted that 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


43 


no oilier living statesman in Britain can surpass, or even equal the 
new Premier in his scornful estimate of human nature; Mr. Disraeli 
is a thorough adept at “measuring other men’s corn in his own 
bushel;” and being a practical man, he invariably treats human beings 
according to his convictions regarding himself. It only remains, 
however, to see whether, as has often happened before, too much 
success will not generate too much sense of security. Mr. Disraeli 
can hardly improve, or, I might say, keep up, the superb audacity of 
his avowal that he, the great Tory leader, had for nearly a decade of 
years been Educating his party into the Democratic doctrines of the 
“ People’s Charter.” Even blind, stupid worms may turn, especially 
if those who tread on them are very fond, as Mr. Disraeli really is, 
of continually assuring worms of their vermicular nature. When a 
practised dissembler declines or forgets to dissemble, “ the evil eye 
may be then beginning to do its destructive work. It was when 
Haman went forth joyful, overflowing with gladness, and sat down to 
banquet with the King and Queen, that his fearful fall was close at 
hand.” I am not concerned, however, with soothsaying or omens, 
but with the present day, and its sufficient good or evil. 

If we really wish to comprehend the curious complications and 
apparent contradictions of Mr. Disraeli, we shall be helped by a careful 
contemplation of the career of his great rival, the distinguished leader 
of the Opposition. Parallels where they occur are not half so valuable 
as contrasts in political biography. While Mr. Disraeli has risen to 
the Premiership of Britain from an humble Solicitor’s dingy office in 
the Old Jewry, it is instructive to look at Mr. Gladstone, who has 
only managed, in spite or by virtue of his education at Eton and 
Oxford, to show that the most brilliant gifts of Nature, and the most 
convenient and fortunate adaptation of opportunities, can command 
failure with a uniformity as admirable as his great rival’s success. What 
are the causes of this ? Is all this to be attributed to a political or a 
natural law?—if so, it is a very melancholy one, Or to social circum¬ 
stances ?—if so, they are instructive and memorable enough. It would 
almost seem that Mr. Gladstone has as accurately forecast conse¬ 
quences, and has as nicely adjusted means to ends, as Mr. Disraeli. 
Only in the one case the calculation was made to win, in the other 
case to lose. There is nothing that both Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Glad¬ 
stone have not with equal skill and pertinacity moulded to their 
several ends of life; only in the one it was moulded to succeed per¬ 
sonally,- to secure pecuniary advantages,—in the other to uphold 
principles with integrity and to fail in grasping the people’s gold. 
Each has managed, with admirable felicity, to frustrate and disappoint 
great expectations. Mr. Gladstone was born in the very purple of 
political life, and nursed on the knees of Toryism. He was dedicated 
almost from his birth to the service of the Tory party,—or rather to 
the service of his fellow-countrymen. He entered into public life under 
the most favorable auspices. While his rival was floundering through 
the bog of social severity and scrambling through literary laboriousness, 
“ the silver swan of the future was sailing on the clear and placid 
stream of the noblest of human careers,—his fellow-countrymen’s 
service,—and composing learned treatises, seasoned with the purest 
Academical salt.” Are we, then, to despair of the lovers of Justice 
among mankind, and are we going to say, or to conclude that the 
most fatal of gifts is to have a large development of Conscientiousness, 


44 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


and to close with the disgusting conclusion that Mr. Gladstone is 
where he is only because he is too proud, too noble, and too honorable 
for the crooked courses of this common every-day political world, 
where leading men wear the honors won by their ancestors, where 
nobility is held by patent,—and where a piece ot parchment is a much 
more portable instrument than virtue shielded by integrity ? I am 
very loth to say so; but yet the facts are impressive enough, and well 
calculated to command National attention. 

I am, dear Sir, your cordial co-operator in the great and not to-be- 
resisted cause of Equal Justice, 

JOHN SCOTT. 


LETTEE V. 

Belfast, 50, Victoria Terrace, 
February 2 8th, 1868. 

The Right Hon. B. Disraeli, Prime 
Minister of Britain. 

Dear Sir, —The authority of names or of offices is nothing to me ; 
I judge all men by their actions and conduct; and must hate a knave 
of my own party as much as I despise a tricky schemer of another. I 
cannot consent that any man or body of men shall do what they please. 
I claim the right of examining all public measures, and, if they deserve 
it, of censuring them. As I never saw much power possessed without 
some abuse, I take upon me to watch those that have it; and to acquit 
or expose them, according as they apply it to the good of their country, 
or to their own crooked purposes. I experience a strong sincere desire 
to teach you some important lessons in the Literary Art of free, fear¬ 
less, criticism. I desire to speak to you very plainly, but at the same' 
time very pointedly and penetratingly. I have your mental melioration 
in view, and must, therefore, if possible, try and reach your inner¬ 
most sensibilities. You are in the habit of seeing everything so very 
far off, and in combination with everything else possible and impossible, 
that in fact, you are apt to see nothing of the present; you do not even 
see Truth itself, because everything is so mixed up and melts into such 
complete evanescence that matters of fact are lost to you. It is very 
evident that you lack the grand faculty of appreciating or of appro¬ 
priating facts. There is a very general feeling prevailing throughout 
the Nation, that you are, however, capable of doing anything, and that 
it is hard to prevent } T ou from doing anything that you may be pleased 
to do. I am not one of those who cherish this opinion of you. In 
my humble estimation, you are not a hopeless case ; and, therefore, 
anticipate being successful in your conversion. But, if I should fail in 
this, the letters which I intend to address to you through the Press, 
will, at the very least establish a beneficial precedent, by showing an 
impartial public example on the part of a British citizen, who parti¬ 
cipates largely in the pleasure resulting from seeing a gentleman of 
the Press promoted to the highest political position in the Empire. 
The permanence of the pleasure experienced by literary men at seeing 
a distinguished member of the Fraternity elevated to the most dignified 
trust that a subject can secure, must, however, depend upon your duly 
considering yourself to be the Premier of Britain, and not the Premier 
of the stand-still Tory party. To confirm and perpetuate the satisfac- 



POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


45 


tion felt at your successful triumph, you must let the Nation see that 
you clearly perceive the visible difference between the two offices, and 
guard against becoming giddy in your high position. It frequently 
happens that men of your type of Brain, who are vain and full of self- 
conceit, instead of being egotistical, envious, and obdurate, as would 
appear very likely, are extremely gracious, benevolent, good com¬ 
panions, and even good friends, and happy to be of service to their 
admirers. Thinking themselves sincerely beloved by all, they naturally 
love their supposed admirers, and help them forward whenever they 
can succeed; and besides they judge this suitable to the superiority 
with which they account themselves favored by Fortune. They love 
society because they believe the whole of society to be full of their 
name ; and are gentle in their manners, praising themselves inwardly 
for their condescension, as well as for knowing how to adapt their 
greatness to familiarity with the little individuals around them. And 
I have also often observed that men like Lord Derby and yourself, 
found growing in their own conceit, grow likewise in benignity. More¬ 
over, the certitude they have of their own importance and of the 
unanimity of their admirers in confessing it, takes from their manners 
all harshness, because no one who is contented with himself and 
mankind is ever harsh in manner, and thus it generates in them such 
tranquillity, that sometimes they gradually become to look like really 
modest persons. Lord Derby’s passive and timid resignation brings 
Tory Government to a final close in Britain. By being commissioned 
to form a new Ministry you have at last won the prize of your con¬ 
summate Tory tact and indefatigable perseverance. You have taken 
possession of the object of your anxious pursuit; you have attained 
the highest political position. Could you resolve to discard the 
consideration of every interest, temporary, local, or private, that 
impedes the general good, your duties would he discharged with facility. 
You would then discover "that there is a Science in legislation, which 
the details of office and the intrigues of popular assemblies will never 
communicate or cultivate;—a Science of which the principles must be 
sought for in the constitution of human nature, and in the general laws 
which regulate the course of human affairs; and which, if ever, in 
consequence of the progress of profound reflection, political Science 
should be enabled in your head and hands to assume that ascendancy in 
the Government of Britain, which has hitherto been maintained by 
the mere incident of birth, combined with the unregulated desires and 
caprices of a few leading individuals, it may produce more perfect and 
beneficial results than have yet been realized in the experience of 
mankind. Be this as it may, it is certain that you will not meet with 
any grave difficulty in the mere re-adjustment of the Cabinet, the form 
of which you have already moulded, and the policy of which you have 
already shaped, to accomplish the purposes of your own expanding 
and extensive ambition. 

When Parliament resumed business this Session, the two great 
political parties contending lor power and pay stood again face to face; 
the Tories, with a resolution to maintain the position they have made 
great sacrifices for; and the Liberals, indignant at the adoption of 
their own weapons by their enemies. It would have been extremely 
agreeable to the inclination of the former, without doubt, if the Session 
were allowed to be a mere interregnum, devoted to preparations lor a 
graceful dissolution of the existing system ol lepiesentation in the 


46 


THE SHARP SPEAR AMD FLAMING SWORD OF 


House of the Common men, and to electioneering manceuvers with 
respect to the new one which is to take place; hut there were measures 
which the Government stood pledged to produce, and upon no pretence 
could they he allowed to baulk the expectations of the people. A our 
Bill, introduced upon the 13th of February, for the prevention of cor¬ 
rupt practices at elections, is a mere- stop-gap to public indignation at 
monstrous offences which investigation have brought to light. This 
plague-spot must he rooted out from every constituency; and although 
we shall probably never he able to accomplish all that may he desira¬ 
ble in the matter, still we must do what we can. Do not our past and 
present experiences prove, that, as far as any Parliamentary enactment 
can correct an evil, that of bribery and corruption at elections would 
he accomplished by the Ballot ? But neither Tories nor aristocratic 
Whigs like the Ballot, as connected with the electoral system, although 
they find it excellently efficacious for its purposes in their clubs. You 
undertook to put a check upon corrupt practices at Parliamentary 
elections, and in a meek and kindly spirit attempted to enlist the sup¬ 
port of men of all parties upon the occasion. It seems to be overlooked 
by Parliament that the object to which its exertions should be directed 
is the suppression of bribery, whereas your Government Bill contem¬ 
plates its continuance. Your Bill may he regarded in the light of an 
attempt to correct an evil by a round-about way, which might be 
abolished by a direct and simple process. If every elector could shield 
his vote from public observation, the object of representation would be 
more nearly effected than it can he under any modification of the open 
system. There would be little or no bribery,—because, willing as a 
candidate might he to corrupt the electors, he would be unwilling to 
trust a man who, base enough to accept a bribe, would also be base 
enough to cheat his corruptor at the Ballot-box, where his vote could 
be recorded unseen. Government should look, not to a continuance of 
bribery and corruption,—as they do by your Bill,—but to its extinc¬ 
tion. Instead of appointing three new Judges to investigate charges, 
Government should put an end to the possibility of them, by accepting 
the Ballot at once; for the Ballot must eventually be come to, however 
long the prejudices and the interests of public men may defer the time. 
You are not unjustly proud of having successfully taught the Tories to 
appreciate the question of Reform; hut there is a class of men very 
much dissatisfied with the teaching and its results, and who would be 
glad to recover their old position. That not being possible, they may, 
nevertheless, decline going further, and set up some wooden idol to 
worship, rather than follow their ingenious leader, who has taken poli¬ 
tical power out of their hands to give it to the working classes. Re¬ 
garded as a section of the Reform Measures, the question has stood 
over from last Session, and in the Spring of 1867 the Ministry pre¬ 
sented the general outline of the scheme. They then proposed that 
the trial of controverted elections should no longer remain under the 
exclusive jurisdiction of the Common men, but that, whenever a return 
was challenged in due form, two Assessors should be despatched to the 
locality affected, and there hold a Court to investigate the allegations 
of mal-practices. If an appeal were made from their decision, the 
House of the Common men might appoint a Select Committee to 
re-hear the case; but if the decision of the Assessors were not chal¬ 
lenged within a specified time it became binding. The plan was a 
great innovation. Parliament has uniformly displayed a jealous 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 47 

anxiety to maintain unimpaired its exclusive jurisdiction; and to ask 
for a partial surrender of its powers was a bold step. The Govern¬ 
ment had originally intended that the scheme should form part of the 
new Reform Bill, they soon discovered the expediency of separating 
the two subjects. When the Ten Minutes’ Bill was abandoned and 
its successor brought in, the clauses relating to bribery were omitted \ 
but shortly before the Easter recess “ The Corrupt Practices at Elec¬ 
tions Bill was introduced as a distinct measure. 

Your Bribery Bill is, of course a failure, and one of a peculiar and 
unexpected kind, through the determination of the Judges not to mix 
themselves up with political squabbles, and decide the election cases 
which Parliamentary Committees have hitherto adjudicated. You 
clearly see the difficulty of getting the House of the Common men to 
consent to allowing its members to be subjected to such penalties as 
incapacity to sit for seven years, or for life (as has been proposed), by 
the decision of any tribunal inferior in public estimation to Parliament. 
The House of the Common men is right in principle in desiring to 
keep such a jurisdiction in its own hands; but it has hitherto egre- 
giously failed in making its Election Committees at all satisfactory or 
reliable. The fact is, that our Electoral System is an absurd one. It 
is contrived so as to make bribery, treating, and intimidation common 
and customary offences. It is notorious that a large portion of the 
House of the Common men is returned by such means, and places by 
the dozen could be named in which they occur with clock-work regu¬ 
larity each time a vacancy has to be filled. The great families prefer 
electoral corruption to an honest expression of popular opinion; and 
so long as they retain rotten boroughs, and keep the tenant-farmers in 
a state of thraldom, no laws against bribery or against intimidation 
will avail. A fairer distribution of seats, a further reduction of the 
County Franchise, and the Ballot, would make our elections much 
more free from criminal influence or coercion, and no bribery laws will 
be worth the parchment on which they are written until such improve¬ 
ments are made. Mr. Bright justly pointed out the true remedies,— 
large constituencies and secret voting; and no one can gainsay him 
when he remarked that “ the show of forty, fifty, sixty, or eighty peti¬ 
tions is an absolute disgrace to the British Parliament.” It is, indeed, 
a very remarkable instance of the force of habit in reconciling a nation 
to disreputable abominations that such a system of iniquity should be 
so lightly viewed. The upper classes, who manufacture the fashion¬ 
able morals of society, do not regard bribery as at all criminal. They 
want it, as they want the more brutal offence of intimidation, and they 
sincerely pity any member of their order who suffers inconvenience 
through being found out. By degrees the mass of the people will come 
to a determination to put this evil down. The wiser politicians all 
know that it belongs to a system, and will endure as long as that sys¬ 
tem lasts ; but a great portion of the middle class is not yet sufficiently 
alive to the enormous importance of making all electoral arrangements 
honest, as one of the best safeguards against the peculiar dangers of 
Democratic growth. If the upper classes persist in rendering them 
dishonest for their own selfish purposes, it is to be feared that some 
corresponding manifestation of dishonesty will take place in the lower 
ranks. There is no other civilized nation which is so conceited of its 
own institutions, and of all its modes' of public action, as Britain is. 
This conceit has much to do with the electoral enormities of Britain, 


48 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


as well as with the discontent of Ireland. The upper classes of Britain 
do not like to bring their own minds to confess the defects of the Con¬ 
stitution, while they are perpetually gratifying their vanity by praising 
it; and a large portion of the middle class lack the moral courage to 
think right when the world of fashion and frivolity decides in favor oi 
anything wrong. A few years ago, we stood foremost in all Europe 
for our Parliamentary arrangements, bad as they were. Now, 
we are being left behind, and we have the worst system of any 
civilized country that possesses a Parliament at all; and our home 
system is much worse than that of our colonies, which have followed 
the advice given long ago by Reformers who have not yet obtained a 
fair hearing in their own land. Electioneering Agents know full 
well that when once a constituency has been corrupted, it is next to 
impossible to make it sound again; and yet, at the time when we are 
bringing large masses of people of slender means into the enjoyment of 
the Franchise, we permit old pernicious arrangements to exist, and fresh 
ones,—like the ratepaying clause,—to be made which will facilitate 
corruption to an enormous extent. The passing of the Bill for pre¬ 
venting bribery at elections cannot be properly regarded as a principal 
condition precedent to an early dissolution of Parliament; but it is of 
the utmost possible importance that the present House of the Common 
men should, before the Session comes to an end, pass some measure 
intended to produce that result. I need not at present further discuss 
the provisions of the Bill as it stands. The soundness of its principles 
and the effectiveness of its details must be tested by experience; but it 
is pretty obvious that, if matters are left in their present position, we 
shall next Spring have such a crop of election petitions as has been 
seldom or ever seen after a general election. To what extent the new 
voters will be bribable no one knows, but unless their virtue is much 
greater than that of the old voters, which there is no particular ground 
to expect, and unless a degree of unanimity prevails in the constituen¬ 
cies, of which as yet we have no experience, there is every ground to 
believe that there will be fierce contests all over the country, and that 
the price of the judicious people who hold out to the last with a well- 
founded expectation of being handsomely paid when their services are 
required, will be highly satisfactory to themselves, and to every one 
who is interested in exciting and remunerative contests afterwards in 
Parliamentary Committee Rooms. It must, moreover be remembered 
and admitted that the Bill must be an abominably bad one indeed, if 
it does not effect a considerable improvement in the present state of 
the law. It is difficult to imagine anything so expensive, so open to 
every kind of abuse, so little calculated to do Justice, or to satisfy the 
public that Justice has been done (which is hardly less important), as 
the present system. To be rid of that will always be so much gained. 
The good and the bad parts of a new system will be gradually disclosed 
by experience, and its evils will be much more easily reformed than of 
an established abuse like the existing election committees. 

Lord Derby has resigned, and you have been called upon by the 
Queen to form a new Administration. You have reached the highest 
point of your ambition, and the greatest men of the Tory party who 
affected to despise you whilst they consented to follow your leading 
when Lord Derby held you by the hand, are said to be willing to sup¬ 
port your Ministry. You have passed through a sudden state of 
political consternation to a triumph; and the triumph is all the 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


49 


greater on account of the known forces by whom your ascendancy was 
opposed. By dint of extraordinary perseverance you have enforced 
acknowledgment of your superior abilities, and has overcome obstacles 
which to less resolute men would have appeared, and been, insur¬ 
mountable ; and you now stand at the head and command of an Ad¬ 
ministration, looking down with an air of superiority upon men who 
were once of greater mark and likelihood, and that would willingly 
have obstructed your progress, and were indeed expected by their 
partisans to do so. Ridiculed and constantly hooted when you 
first rose to address the House of the Common men, as though you 
were a mere coxcomb and silly pretender, whom the wits and sages of 
the period were unable to endure, you have made your way with the 
spirit of your own “ Vivian Grey,” who “ had a smile for a friend and 
a sneer for the world,” in your effort to rise to the Government of the 
British Empire ; and the result justifies the undying faith which you 
maintained in your own principle and innate power. Sir Robert Peel 
despised you, when you would have placed your services at the com¬ 
mand of the Peel Administration, and in less than five years after- 
wards you had your revenge upon Peel. Lord Derby, wise and 
sagacious in selecting adherents, discovered the use of your determined 
spirit, took advantage of it, adopted, and never forsook you. On both 
occasions when Lord Derby was required to form an Administration, 
one of the conditions with his party was that you should lead the 
Commons; and, although Ultra-Tories and men of high aristocratio 
connexions fretted and fumed, moaned and threatened defection, the 
Premier clung to his friend, conscious, no doubt, that Ultra-Tory 
indignation could not be half so injurious to his Ministry as the 
rejected politician might become in Opposition. But this was not all 
the cause for Lord Derby’s undeviating support of you. The great 
Derby was well aware that in all the Tory ranks there was not to be 
found a man of greater ability, more thoughtful in council, more 
impressive in debate. While you on your own part knew well the 
immense value of Lord Derby’s support. “At this moment,” says 
your own hero, “ how many a powerful noble only wants wit to be a 
Minister; and what wants Vivian Grey to attain the same end ? That 
noble’s influence. When two persons can so materially assist each 
other why are they not brought together?” Lord Derby may have 
been a reader of “Vivian Grey,” and have drawn useful conclusions 
from the reading. And when the great Lord Derby, reduced, unhappily, 
by bodily affliction, was obliged to lay down the authority the Queen 
had trusted to his hands, there cannot be a doubt of his having done the 
best thing possible for his party in recommending her Majesty to give 
it to you. There are other men, no doubt, who believe they have a 
better right to it, and who, up to the moment when it was disclosed in 
Parliament that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in communica¬ 
tion with her Majesty, were under the agreeable impression that the 
staff of office would be theirs. But Lord Derby’s decision was right. 
If a Tory Administration is to be saved, you are the man to save it. 
This result can be achieved only by great concessions to the Liberal 
spirit of the age ; and you may be inclined to do this, and to further 
educate the Tory Peers and squires up to the required concession 
point. Lord Stanley may have had a laudable ambition to become 
Premier, but his prudent father did not recommend his immediate 
advancement; and, consequently, as you refused to occupy a secondary 


50 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


position in a new Cabinet, there was no alternative but to call you to 
the first. Your Administration is very weak in tlie House of tlie Lords. 
It is in the House of the Common men, however, that the battles of 
the Administration will be fought, and you may be exercising a shrewd 
judgment in keeping the best of your forces there. Great questions 
await discussion and settlement, and unless tact and sagacity are 
displayed, you will be thrown down before you are many months 
settled in your seat. The Irish qestions will bring your power and 
authority over your party to the test. If you do not make great 
concession, Mr. Gladstone will defeat you. 

In the anomalously-constituted political machine of Britain, an 
injury or displacement of a mere glittering speck on the exterior sur¬ 
face is calculated to produce a greater disturbance than the loss of a 
balance wheel or the snapping asunder of the mainspring itself. The 
gout of a Peer is deemed of greater importance than the agonies of a 
nation. The toes of Lord Derby are objects of greater interest in the 
British Parliament than the woes of Ireland ; and, therefore, the said 
Great British Parliament practically proclaims,—“ Better that Ireland 
should remain the prey of her present oppressors,—better that famine 
and pestilence, Soil-Lord exterminations, and mad exhausting sedition 
should ravage the third part of the United Queendom, and paralyze the 
industrial and moral energies of five millions of Queen Victoria’s 
plebeian subjects,—than that the gouty limbs of an antiquated Tory 
Lord should be incommoded by a discussion of the causes which have 
made the overwhelming majority of the Irish people anxious and eager 
to dissolve their political connexion with England and Scotland. 
Tuesday, the 25th of February, was appointed for a great debate on 
the Irish question. The discussion which was certain to result from 
the motion of Mr. Maguire, M.P. for Cork, would at least have the 
effect of calling public attention to the subject, even if it led to no 
further benefit to the wretched and long-suffering Irish people. There 
was a distinct promise on the part of Ministers that on that evening 
Government was ready to reveal the measures contemplated by the 
official advisers of the Queen for the removal of the most flagrant 
political and social scandal in Christendom,—the unparalleled physical 
wretchedness of the great body of the Irish population. This, I say, 
was the programme of the House of the Common men for Tuesday, 
the 25th February ; and in spite of the experience of many previous 
disappointments, considerable public expectation was excited as to the 
nature of the Ministerial plans for the redress of Irish wrongs, which 
it was promised would be revealed on that evening. But once more 
Ireland has been compelled to wait the convenience of the coroneted 
political quacks by whom she is tormented, and once more the patient 
and stolid English public has had to submit to the baulking of its 
legitimate anxiety, because a single member of the privileged caste has 
confessed his incapacity for the office which rank, wealth, and national 
flunkeyism, rather than intellectual or moral fitness, had appointed 
him to fill. Because Lord Derby has at length thought proper to 
resign the Premiership the consideration of the condition of the Irish 
question is indefinitely postponed. In answer to Mr. Maguire, who 
was naturally chagrined at the abandonment of the appointed debate, 
and the prolongation of the anxiety to which the Ministerial promise 
of a scheme for the settlement of the Irish difficulty gave birth, Lord 
Stanley distinctly stated that the Government could fix no day for the 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


51 


resumption of the subject. And thus, for no other cause than the 
incapacity of a single aristocrat, millions of human beings are to be 
kept waiting tor the redress to which they are justly entitled, a gross 
and infamous national scandal is to be endured, and a great political 
peril has to be incurred. Touching this resignation of the Premier¬ 
ship by Lord Derby, to which I have already referred, a few important 
questions deserve to be considered. Why did not his Lordship resign 
before Shrove Tuesday ? Why put off so important a step till the eve 
of wliat promised to be the most critical and exciting discussion of the 
Session ? It must be admitted that Lord Derby’s health was much 
worse three or tour weeks before the 25th of February than it was at 
that time, yet he did not then resign; though, if he had taken this 
patriotic step, ample time would have been afforded for the appoint¬ 
ment of his successor. His Lordship, so I am confidently informed, 
is much better than he was a few weeks back. Why, then, not continue 
to hold the high office which he filled, until at least the first discussion 
of the Government measure for dealing with the Irish difficulty had 
been gone through ? How and by what means did the Idea originate 
with you, that Lord Derby's resignation, on the very evening that the 
discussion on the Causes of the condition of Ireland was to commence, 
would certainly produce such a public Shock, and excite a Sensation so 
wide-spread, as would necessarily break the force of the universal 
interest cherished with regard to the expected Irish debate ? Your 
strong ambitious desire to attain your own personal objects originated 
this idea, and you have been successful in planting it in other Brains. 
It so happens, however, that the circumstances of the present year 
were more than usually favorable to a fair discussion of the causes of 
the condition of Ireland. But, whatever may have been the principal 
design of it, the Earl of Derby has resigned the Premiership,—the 
Irish debate, which has been postponed for the last half century, has 
been further delayed,—the Queen is in the Isle of Wight,—you have 
had to go all the way from London to the favored spot, to obtain the 
Royal sanction to your appointment as Lord Derby’s successor, and 
the House of Common men has had to adjourn for days, to wait the 
convenience of the exalted parties, without whose guidance and con¬ 
trivance the greatness of Britain,—it is supposed by the State Idol 
worshipers,—could not survive a single day. 

Now, as it must have been well known, both at court, and to his 
own colleagues, that Lord Derby was about to resign, arrangements 
ought to have been made for the accession of his successor, without a 
single moment’s loss of precious time. Under the circumstances you 
were the only possible successor of the Earl of Derby. The Tories 
have no other man qualified for the post. The causes that have given 
them wealth and social influence have denied them the Brains, without 
which, in these days, not even an assembly of footmen can be con¬ 
trolled. Indeed, the whole great British Aristocracy is at this moment 
portentously deficient in intellectual power. Even the great Whig 
families, who at all times were better endowed with Brains than their 
rivals, are under the necessity of placing themselves under the.leader¬ 
ship of a Commoner. Mr. Gladstone at the head of the Whigs and 
true Liberals, and yourself at the head of the Tories, are striking 
proofs of that sterility of intellectual power with which Nature has 
smitten and cursed the hereditary oppressors of the English, Irish, and 
Scotch people. How long the purchased guidance of such men as 

D 


52 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


yourself and Mr. Gladstone will avail to avert from the privileged caste 
the downfall which their mental imbecility clearly indicates as their 
inevitable destiny, is a question which time only can certainly answer. 
At this moment, however, there can be no doubt as to your title, from 
the Tory point of view, to the first place in the leadership ol the party; 
for if it had not been for you, there would be now no Tory party in 
existence. You have been the principal shepherd and shield of tlie 
Tories for the last twenty-two years—ever since the patriotic apos- 
tacy of the late Sir Robert Peel, —you have rallied and led, encou¬ 
raged and admonished, restrained and educated, the stupid-brained 
squires, who were discomfited and demoralized by the defection of their 
former leader. For your skill as a party general, you are deserving of 
the highest reward which your party can bestow. Therefore, to pass 
you over for the sake of a clever mediocrity, such as Lord Stanley, or 
such a transparent political apprentice as the Duke of Buckingham, 
would be to convict the Tory party of ingratitude as well as of igno¬ 
rance, and to prove to the world that their minds are as black as their 
Brains are stiff. This, however, is a charge to which the Tories are 
less open than the Whigs, who have never yet allowed a “ Commoner,” 
however brilliant his career or magnificent his intellect, to rise to the 
first place among men,—that being always reserved for some intellec¬ 
tual mediocrity allied to one or the other of the great Whig houses. 
On the other hand, the Tories, within the memory of thousands now 
living, had three Prime Ministers who rose from comparatively obscure 
and plebeian families,—namely, Canning, Peel, and yourself. True, 
they are charged with having killed Canning, by their secret conspiracies 
against him. As for Peel, he deserted them; therefore they are, to 
some extent, excused for having persecuted him. As for yourself, it 
remains to be seen how they will comport themselves under your 
leadership, which is a practical proclamation that the great British 
Aristocracy is an intellectually emasculated caste, with just enough 
Brains to subordinate pride to self-preservation, and accept the guidance 
of a brilliant scourge, rather than the leadership of a high-born noodle, 
who, in ordinary times, would doubtless be preferred to the most ac¬ 
complished plebeian statesman, orator, and administrator that ever 
lived. Time only can tell what sort of a Prime Minister you will make. 
If, however, I may anticipate the future from the past, I am justified 
in predicting that you will endeavor to hold your place,—not so much 
by pandering to the silly prejudices of your followers, as by timely con¬ 
cessions,—in appearance at least,—of some of the just demands of the 
working classes. You generally know well which way the current of 
public opinion is driving. You know that the living forces of the age 
are all on the side of political progress. You can well discriminate 
between the living and the dead,—between the real and the sham,— 
between the Tory counterfeit and the genuine working man. You 
know the difference between the great “British Lion” and the Tory 
donkey, that vainly attempts to assume the lion’s mien, and to emulate 
his roar. True, Mr. Gathorne Hardy may mistake the bray of the 
donkey for the roar of the lion,—the squeak of a pot-house clique of 
guzzling politicians, who call themselves “ Conservative Working Men,” 
for the mighty voice of the British Democracy: but you are too 
intelligent to be the servile dupe of such a palpable deception as that 
palmed upon the Home Secretary a few days ago. Therefore, if the 
people will manfully do their duty, more Democratic measures of Re- 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


5B 


form than any hitherto passed will mark the term of your Premiership, 
if that Premiership should last for six months. 

You have undertaken to govern the British nation without a Par¬ 
liamentary majority, and Lord Russell is both amazed and very angry 
at your audacious boldness. But as it has been shrewdly observed, 
“the House of the Common men, like ‘ King Harry,’ likes above all 
things a man.” And certainly you are no milksop. You are a 
Trimmer, a Tadpole, a Taper; but you are resolute in what you do, 
and you have hitherto contrived to enlist the sympathies of all the 
sections of the Tory partizans (with some half-dozen individual excep¬ 
tions), however strongly your proceedings may have been at variance 
with Tory principles and traditions. Lord Russell does not like the 
“educational” process which you have been carrying out, and which 
he calls “ a course of deception ;” adding that “ it ought to prevent any 
reliance being placed in a Government which openly avow that they 
do not mean what they say.” Lord Russell is right in thinking that 
a Government should be honest, clear, and explicit. But you are 
right also, nevertheless; for if you had been as frank in the exposition 
of your ideas and intentions as Lord Russell and strict justice require, 
there would have been no Reform of Parliament last year, and the 
people forming the Nation in an uproar might still be petitioning for 
it in vain. The Tories would not let Lord Russell nor Mr. Gladstone 
carry a Reform Bill, but under your discipline their prejudices were 
surrendered with the meekness of cooing doves. Lord Russell’s anger 
I can understand, but is his Lordship able to say that he himself has 
never in the course of his political life had occasion to acknowledge a 
change of opinion under an accession of wisdom, or the presentation 
of a subject under a different light to what he had seen it before ? Did 
he never hear of the little boy who wrote “No Popery” on a door and 
then ran away ? Two blacks, however, do not make one white. You 
are chargeable with having done what when you were in Opposition 
you had declared ought not to be done. You have made a more ex¬ 
tensive Reform of Parliament than was considered possible by your 
rivals; but, as Lord Russell said, “ it is unexampled in the history 
of party that such a deception, or such an education, if you choose so 
to call it, should be resorted to.” This is undeniably true; and the 
Nation does not fail to observe and estimate the sacrifice of political 
character involved in the proceeding; but there is this difference in 
the national sentiment and that of the Ex-Minister; that the latter 
has reference to the interests of “party” only, whilst the Nation, pre¬ 
ferring its own interests, takes the good which is offered without caring 
much about the political complexion of the party presenting it. 

Your policy, mysterious and complex as it may seem to some 
observers, is simple enough. Not having a majority in the^ House of 
the Common men you must do without it. The vitality of your Ad¬ 
ministration depends upon your ability to soften resentments and lure 
• some of your opponents to your side by every golden charm. If you 
can keep the party at your back in order, you may reckon upon success 
■with some degree of confidence, for still in the Liberal ranks there is a 
lamentable want of cohesion, through which they are weaker than they 
might be: and you know that to divide is to conquer, and you await 
with peculiar patience and silence the result of unsettled opinion in 
the adverse camp. But you are not altogether silent. You have fre¬ 
quently said of late, that, you will “ give the country Liberal measures,” 


54 


THE SHARE SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


and you have adverted to the Reform Bill as affording an assurance 
that you mean, in this instance, what you say. The words had an 
effect upon the House of the Common men. They may mean, how¬ 
ever, anything or nothing, but they startled the Opposition, and 
occasioned w r onder and amazement to some of the old Tories, who have 
not yet received a sufficient “ education” from you to enable them to 
comprehend your purposes. But they indicate a man of intention, 
whether it be for good or evil; a man of business, who will not go to 
sleep at his post and neglect the business of the Nation for the sake ol 
inglorious repose. The people dislike and object to your Tory prin¬ 
ciples, but they like your courage and pluck ; you are a man whom 
there is no discredit in accepting a service from, and whom there is 
pleasure in opposing when you are wrong, for the British people do 
not break butterflies upon awheel; and when they have to fight, prefer 
a manly combatant to a coward. But there w T ill be in your present Go¬ 
vernment the same fatal malady that afflicted the Government of Lord 
Derby, its weakness in Parliamentary power. You have not a majority 
on your side of the House to enable you to carry on the business in the 
way it ought to be carried on. The blame of the present state of things 
must be, liownver, apportioned; but it is a great calamity, and most 
detrimental to the public interest. The Government should be carried 
on by a majority of the House of the Common men, then we should 
not have the wavering uncertain policy we have recently witnessed. 
The uncertainty which exists among Liberal partizans is to be deplored, 
because it is only from this cause, the strength of Toryism is derived. 
The ground-plan of your Premiership will be derived from your own 
Mr. Taper’s explanation of a “sound Conservative Government,” 
which, according to that eminent placeman, means “ Tory men and Whig 
measures.” Things have much altered since Mr. Taper s time, or he 
would have admitted something more into his programme than is com¬ 
prehended under the term of Whig. Lord Russell, with his head full 
of history, says the course of conduct pursued by you in carrying an 
extensive Reform Bill after you had said, you would do nothing of the 
kind, was “ such as men like Fox, or Lord Grey, or Althorp would 
have spurned; and that men like Lord Liverpool, the Duke of Wel¬ 
lington, and Sir Robert Peel would not have.adopted.” But surely 
Lord Russell would not consign the people to the tender mercies of a 
policy such as Lord Liverpool and the Duke of Wellington would have 
approved. It was a relief when the principles and policy of Liverpool 
and Wellington were got rid of, for those statesmen w T ere declared 
enemies of progress, and if their ideas had not been overcome there 
would have been no Free Trade and the country would have come to 
the revolution and ruin which Sir Robert Peel’s happy change 
averted. The authority of the last-mentioned statesman’s example 
upon the Corn Laws might be quoted by you in vindication of your 
own liberalized opinion on Reform. Disinclined though I may be to 
approve a Tory Administration even in the modified shape it has taken 
under the pressure of public opinion, I am altogether averse from the 
resuscitation of the sentiments of those old Tory Governments when 
opinion was expressed under fear of military sabres and bayonets, and 
public meetings were declared to be only farces which the Duke of 
Wellington could laugh at and despise. Lord Russell is wrong if he 
supposes that the mind of the Nation could be ruled by the political 
doctrines ot statesmen and Governments thirty years ago. The world 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


is changed since then. A new generation has come into active exist¬ 
ence, with different ideas, modes, and interests from what were con¬ 
templated by Lord Livekpool ancl Lord Gkey ; and as far as one can 
look to party questions and party divisions, it seems as if the old battle 
fields of party were being swept away, and the old standards of party 
politicians were no longer to be raised. The days of Government for 
the sake of party are passed away, and the country must be ruled by 
the majority of the people, for the interests of the people. 

Britain has enjoyed representative institutions for centuries, and 
yet few of the mass of the British people have any clear conception of 
the true objects of representation, or of the importance of honest, 
straightforward arrangements for conducting electoral business. Any 
approximation towards equal electoral districts must break up exist¬ 
ing territorial arrangements, and will consequently be vehemently 
opposed by numerous classes who would lose power in consequence of 
such a change. The progress we are making from the comparative 
barbarism of an aristocratic system towards the civilization of Demo¬ 
cracy, brings individual life and character into greater prominence and 
importance. An exclusive system permits the few to rule according 
to a conventional plan, and lumps the mass of the people together as 
mere subjects of legislation, who have nothing to do with the laws but 
to obey them. A Democratic system if worthy of the name, aims at 
making all the citizens agents in Government and social progress. It 
recognizes the grand fundamental political Truth that the majority 
have a right to decide all practical questions; and it is evident that if 
all the individuals in a State were fairly represented in Parliament, 
the majority in the country would have a corresponding majority 
amongst the M.P.’s. The good old Chartist scheme was devised for 
equal electoral districts, with one member for each. In the new Ger¬ 
man Constitution there is approximate equality in the apportion¬ 
ment of members to population, and the Suffrage is almost universal 
among adult males. In America, the principle of assigning repre¬ 
sentation in proportion to population has always been acted upon, 
and Britain stands alone, in the present day, for the extent and 
absurdity to which the opposite principle of inequality has been carried, 
and for the corresponding extent to which minorities can obstruct 
the wishes of majorities, and place unjustifiable obstacles in the way 
of improvement. A strong, promptly legislating Parliament cannot be 
obtained now that the country has passed the despotic stage, until the 
opinions of majorities are fairly represented, and the conflict now going 
on is to decide whether the majority shall rule or whether minorities 
shall be permitted to circumvent the great mass of the people, as they 
do at this time, and as they have hitherto done, under our fraudulent 
electoral system. An immense deal of time is now lost through the 
artificial impediments placed in the way of the majority. Our House 
of Common men is devised and contrived not to represent the majority, 
and it only consents to do so when public excitement has grown too 
strong to be safely withstood. A representation that would give the 
majority fair play must be founded upon the principle that the whole 
people should be represented as justly as electoral arrangements can 
contrive. When that is the case, legislation will be prompt and deci¬ 
sive upon all questions which the Nation understands, and it will only 
linger where it ought to wait,—namely, in those cases in which, for 
want of sufficient information, the people have not been able to make 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


56 

up tlieir minds. We may be sure that a real representation of ma¬ 
jorities can only be obtained by the fairest representation of the whole 
community. That plan only would put minorities in tlieir right place, 
as entitled to be heard, but not to obstruct the decision to which the 
majority is willing to arrive. Mere crotchets would have little force, 
and unsettled questions would be chiefly discussed amongst the people 
before they came to the House of our Common men. If we wish for 
the political growth of our country we must frankly accept the principle 
that the majority ought to rule, and that any contrivances which give 
any sort of minorities undue power are to be condemned. 

The moment that Lord Derby's withdrawal, not merely from the 
head of the great Tory party, but from the head of it while in possession 
of power, began to be talked about, the most delicate of personal ques¬ 
tions were unavoidably raised. “ Who shall be Premier in Derby’s 
stead?”—became the general question for several days. Looking at 
politics as a mere game, or as a tierce fight between the Ins and the 
Outs, you, every one must acknowledge, had fully,—I had almost made 
the mistake of saying fairly,—earned a title to the first place, when it 
became vacant,—and vacant principally by your own plans. But was 
that title cordially allowed,—or which is the same thing, was it allowed 
to be paramount by those who must be united in the allowance of it, 
if the Tories, as a party, are to be kept together? Up to the begin¬ 
ning of the Session of 1867, you had to struggle against the invincible, 
or all but invincible, repugnance of bucolic Dukes, and the country 
gentlemen at large, to accept any man as their head, who, in point of 
title or of estate, or both, was not one of themselves. Just, probably, 
as you had triumphed over that formidable obstruction in the path of 
your ambition, you did an act so surprising—so contrary to the tradi¬ 
tions of those to whom you lent your services, that neither yourself nor 
anybody else could wonder should it bring your upward career to a 
final pause at the point of present attainment. In what depends upon 
ingenuity, however,—When were you found at fault ? Did you not, by 
the course which you pursued last Session, bring matters to such a 
point that you can do without your party—at least, as well as your 
party can do without you ? 

You were entitled to the first position by every Tory argument that 
should prevail in the choice of a First Minister of the Crown. Elo¬ 
quence, knowledge, skill of fence, dexterity in debate, and readiness on 
all occasions, compelled the acknowledgement of your claims to the 
succession. It was said that a Duke was to be made Prime Minister 
because he was a Duke and had a grandfather, whilst you had only a 
lineage beginning with a father who contributed some of the pleasantest 
of books to the British library. Such a result would have been a 
scandal, and the Nation would have felt it as an insult, but now it is 
admitted that long services, high intellectual courage, and statesman¬ 
like habits entitled you to the place held by Pitt and Canning. The 
race of Commoners is not yet unproductive of Ministers, although 
aristocracy does start with advantages in the race. Your elevation 
prepares the way for a Liberal Commoner, and there can be no objec¬ 
tion to the installation of Mr. Gladstone as First Minister when his 
day arrives,—as it will before long. The great intellectual struggle of 
the giants will be transferred from the dull atmosphere of the gilded 
Chamber of the Lords to the Lower House of the Common men, - 
with the difference now that the combatants will know they contend 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


57 


tor the grandest distinction that can he obtained by a citizen. To be 
Prime Minister of Britain, a man must have been proved, and have 
proved himself, and if he comes to the post before his competitors it is 
because he has endurance, temper, and capacity. To be Prime Mi¬ 
nister a man must be great, and your elevation will tend to make men 
forget the littleness of cabals and the intrigues of families, in order 
that they may win because they have aspired to be patriots and States¬ 
men worthy of the name of Britain. Much as your opponents may 
differ from you, they must confess that you have shown yourself to be 
possessed of great qualities, and it would be ungenerous not to allow 
you to attain to the first place in Britain. How long you may hold 
the position is quite a question apart from fitness to hold it, for so long 
as the Nation recognizes the principle of party government, the first 
place ought to be given to intellectual excellence, and this not even 
your bitterest political antagonist will deny to you. The appointment 
is a compliment to the British people, and not a little credit is due to 
the great Tory families whose claims have been set aside with their 
own consent, in order that you the great Commoner of their party may 
succeed to the first post. I hope the Liberals will learn a lesson from 
the Tories, and cease to regard the claims of the great Revolution 
Families as sacred. There is at least one man, there is possibly more 
than one, in the ranks of the Liberals, whose claims are far above any 
pretension which the Great Aristocratic Families can show. 

It is said that wherever there is a will there is a way; and many 
incidents in the biographies of eminent men would support the belief 
in the truth of the adage. I may allude to the words you uttered some 
thirty years ago in the House of Common men, when laughed down by 
that assembly. You observed on that occasion:—“I have attempted 
many things, and have often failed in the beginning; but I have never 
abandoned the final hope of success. I sit down now, yet the time will 
come when you shall hear me.” And, again, it is known that Lord 
Melbourne, in his customary and nonchalant manner, and in a some¬ 
what patronizing tone, inquired what were your political prospects; 
to which query you immediately replied,—“I mean, my lord, tube 
Prime Minister of Britain;” and you have kept your word. But, 
although you had the will to become Premier of Britain, it is very 
doubtful if you would ever have attained that elevated position without 
changing the color of your coat,—or, in other words, deserting the 
politics and party you embraced and belonged to on entering public 
life. As with you, so with Lord Derby. Both abandoned your earlier 
predilections, and joined the army where promotion seemed the easier 
to obtain. Lord Derby has filled a large space in the public eye for now 
nearly forty years. He was one of the most conspicuous of the Re¬ 
formers of 1831,—and he was a member of the Cabinet that passed the 
Reform Acts. With his name is associated the great measure of Negro 
Emancipation, by which Britain sacrificed twenty millions, in order 
to redeem from their bondage the slaves of our colonial plantations. 
With the name of Lord Derby, too, the great system of National Edu¬ 
cation in Ireland is bound up, and if on two occasions Lord Derby felt 
it right to leave his political friends, he did so from motives that were 
never questioned, nor was there ever any attempt made to sully his 
political reputation even in quarters where the wisdom of his policy 
was doubted. You started in life as an Ultra-Liberal; and the late 
Premier enlisted under the Liberal standard, but with opinions less 


r >8 THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 

advanced than yours. Your tactics must have completely realized the 
most sanguine expectations of both,—hut there is this difference be¬ 
tween you, for, although, by virtue of birth and fortune, the artificial 
nobleman had good grounds for believing that one day or another he 
might become First Minister of the Crown, you, the Commoner, had 
nothing whatever to depend upon hut the force of indomitable resolu¬ 
tion, backed by the dominant power of a brilliant and gigantic intellect. 
Then, although you had the will to become what you are, you in¬ 
stinctively felt that the surest way of realizing your expectations must 
he that of joining your fortunes with those of the Tories. For many 
years you were doomed to sit in the cold shade of Opposition. For¬ 
tune more frequently frowned than smiled upon you. You were the 
acknowledged leader of the Tory party, hut many of its members 
chafed terribly under your yoke. The noodle Lords that could scarcely 
brook political inferiority to an upstart, and a man of neither wealth, 
nor rank, nor family, were constantly clamoring to have you thrown 
over. “ Of what use or profit,” they asked, “is it following an unprin¬ 
cipled man who cannot lead us into the fat pastures of office, hut keeps 
us perpetually on the wrong side of the doors in Downing Street V” 
One of the chief characteristics of the British aristocracy, as you well 
know, is its base and rank ingratitude to those out of its own order 
who serve them best. It is not, therefore, at all surprising that, 
although by the force of your great and commanding genius, you con¬ 
trived to fish the Tory party out of the mire, weld its scattered and dis¬ 
orderly fragments into a solid and compact mass, and by so doing 
present a hold face to their antagonists, that yet in spite of all these 
great services, the ungrateful Tories were on the point of throwing you 
overboard, when, by your perspicuity and tact you were steering the 
once ricketty, but now thoroughly renovated, old Tory ship into the 
haven of office. You, who were once the slave, is now the master; 
and the Dukes, the Earls, the Marquises, and the pot-bellied squires 
that were plotting, as well as their muddy Brains would admit, to 
throw their leader overboard, are now, one and all your humble and 
obsequious followers. In other words, you have the ball at your feet, 
and it remains to he seen which way you will kick it. As a progressive 
Minister you will become popular, and may retain the reins of power 
for some time. As a re-actionary, or even stationary, Minister of the 
Palmerstonian stamp, your term of office is not worth a few months’ 
purchase. Let you show yourself, not the narrow-minded Minister of 
the Tories, hut the long-sighted leader of the British people, and there 
is no saying how long you may preside over the destinies of the Nation. 
Everybody knows that a mere plebeian, untitled Premier is a bitter pill 
for the Court and aristocracy to swallow; and both are certain, ere 
long, to adopt the same tactics that hounded Canning to death, and 
once nearly prevailed in keeping Peel out of office. It is, therefore, 
neither upon the Court nor on the artificial nobility that you as Pre¬ 
mier can rely for support, but on the people. So long, however, as 
you retain a Cabinet constituted like the present,—How is it possible 
to be a progressive and popular Minister ? I suspect the Cabinet must 
be remodelled, if you as its chief will be found deserving of remaining 
in office. Of what earthly use are the Dukes and Earls comprising it ? 
They are little better than obstructive dummies. Knowing this to be 
the case, you will be compelled to oust Chelmsford from the woolsack, 
and replace him by Cairns, in order to increase the debating power in 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


59 


tlie House of the Lords. And yet there are four Dukes (Buckingham, 
Richmond, Marlborough, Montrose), and two Earls (Devon and Malmes¬ 
bury) Cabinet Ministers, in the Upper House ! ! Of what use are 
they to you ? It they possess ideas they cannot find language to 
express them, otherwise the debating power of a Government com¬ 
prising so many Peers ought to be most formidable and effective in the 
Upper House. The stupidity of the Dukes is costly to the nation, the 
substitution of Cairns for Chelmsford involving an extra outlay of five 
thousand per annum, the latter being entitled when out of office to his 
retiring pension of that amount, which he did not pocket whilst re¬ 
ceiving the full pay of a Lord Chancellor,—namely, ten thousand per 
annum. If you can keep yourself afloat with such dead weight round 
your neck as the dummy Dukes and Earls in your Cabinet, you will 
prove yourself the most wonderful politician of this or any other age. 
They will either trip you up by their treachery, or smother you by 
their stupidity. 

The policy of your forthcoming Administration will greatly depend 
upon yourself and the rank-and-file of the Tory party. If you can 
establish a good smooth understanding with your followers, you will 
not, of course, care very much for your colleagues. You will, no 
doubt, ask the Tory squires to make sacrifices, and all the sacrifices to 
which you can prevail upon them to consent you will be willing and 
eager to accomplish. You will endeavor to make good your claim for 
the Tories to be regarded as quite as Liberal as your opponents. You 
will, therefore, whenever the prejudices of your followers do not deci- 
sivelv intervene, endeavor to outbid Mr. Gladstone and the Liberal 
party. It is stated by the Tory organs and by those who pretend to 
enjoy a large measure of your confidence, that your very first concession 
to Ireland will be the offer of a Charter to the Catholic University. This 
will be in redemption of the promise you made last year to The O’Do- 
noghue. You assured the Irish Roman Catholic members that the 
Supplemental Charter was a great blunder, and that you would do far 
more for them than Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Fortescue were prepared 
to do. It will be seen, by the manner in which the Tories will receive 
this proposal if it should be made, how far their prejudices on other 
questions are likely to stand in the way of your expected policy. As 
soon as you can get the Cabinet completed, you will, of course, have 
to convene a meeting of your party at your official residence. When 
this occurs, you will there and then have to explain your forthcoming 
policy to your followers, before declaring it in the House of the 
Common men. You must, indeed, consult your followers, or pretend 
to consult them, and feign to show some deference to their opinions, 
if you cherish any design of using them as instruments for the 
accomplishment of any one of your purposes. You cannot now put 
Lord Derby forward as the designer of your plans and plots, and speak 
through the lips of that brilliant Automaton. That you may command 
and conquer, you will have to defer and obey. Some of the Tory 
members, anxious for the perpetuation ol the Irish State Church, like 
your colleagues, Sir John Pakington and Mr. G. Hardy, will be ready on 
such a testing question, to show you, that you are expected as Prime 
Minister, to be their servant and not their master. The problem will 
be, how you are to govern the Nation under such conditions. When 
Lord Derby formed his late Administration, it was not regarded as 
particularly strong. But your new Government when it shall be 


60 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


organized without Lord Derby, General Peel, Lord Carnarvon, and 
Lord Cranborne cannot but be regarded as the weakest that has held 
the reins of office for generations. You are,—though now Prime 
Minister,—still tliorougly disliked and distrusted by the breath-blown 
nobles with high blue blood, and your colleagues, with about two 
exceptions, are neither eminent for ability nor tor the weight oi personal 
character,—a quality which you do not even yourself possess. There 
is no time, or room now, for the dissimulation and tolly which would 
stoop to unworthy agencies,—for the pretences which are untrue in 
their pretexts,—for the artifices which, born ot conceit, perish in their 
weakly birth, or for the trickeries which, deemed by shallow minds 
essential to success, only expedite the inevitable ruin which they are 
intended to avert. 

The time has arrived when the people must have some clear distinct 
public good to contend for; some banners with noble mottoes; and 
leaders who will set before them something worthy to do. You must 
be tempted or compelled to offer Liberal boons: you cannot stand still; 
you will either offer some half measure of Justice, and then the Liberal 
leaders must press it out with the full measure, heaped up and running 
over; or you will again astonish the Nation by outbidding even the 
anticipations of the Liberals, and outstripping them, while panting 
•Whigs toil after you in vain. You know, as well as I do, that you hold 
office on the tenure of satisfying the acknowledged requirements of the 
day; and though it is true, that, to accomplish that end, you must 
perpetually violate the antecedents of your party, the condition is abso¬ 
lute and relentless. While, then, you thus persevere with Liberal 
measures, you will continue to prolong the march of Liberal success. 
Should you, however, cease,—should your ordinary supporters arrest 
your progress, you must at once break down, and the Liberal side, 
relieved of the obstacle that stands before it, will take the work into 
its own hands, and resume the advance from a new point of departure. 
Meanwhile the members of the Liberal party will best prepare for that 
inevitable opportunity, by keeping a steadfast watch on the conduct of 
their opponents; exercising a studied self-control over their own 
natural impatience, and thus drilling their strength to sustain the 
action of their trusted leaders, the very instant that the hour for action 
strikes. Of course, the Liberal party out of office has a right to fulfill 
its functions of Grand Political Inquisitor; it has a right to put 3 T ou to 
the question by a perpetual succession of direct interrogatories,—a 
right to know whether your intentions are honorable,—whether you 
mean flirtation with Liberal opinions or marriage, for better for worse. 
The Liberals may give j^ou time to prepare measures, but you have 
had plenty of time since the 18th current to decide as to the principles 
of your policy. On the subject of the Irish State Church, the public is 
anxious to know whether you will try to uphold the present settlement 
intact,—or will attempt the equivalent endowment of all sects,—or will 
assent to impartial disendowment of all;—or whether you have any 
fourth alternative of your own to accomplish the great enterprise of the 
day,—the pacification of Ireland. We live in an enlightened age, when 
the eyes of the world are open to all wrongs, and the public conscience 
is alive to all evils. We have the sterling sense of honor which civi¬ 
lization begets to assist us; we have the public shame, with which no 
nation conscious of dignity can dispense, to support us; we have, above 
all, the popular instinct of justice, and the irresistible force of popular 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC, 


61 


sustain us \ and with these as aids, all that is recjuired is 
union and co-operation, and that harmony of action which gives effect 
to identity of feeling and sentiment. The wrongs of Ireland are now 
patent; the disaffection of the Irish people is beyond contradiction. 

e lia\ e arrived at the crisis when statesmen must act, or Government 
must fail; and when the true friends of the country must take their 
stand, and ensure the remedies which are as necessary to the security 
of Britain as to the welfare of Ireland. This work, however, cannot 
be pursued, except upon one principle, and that is equality, social and 
theological, amongst all classes. There can he no real freedom where 
there is the semblance of sectarian domination; there can be no real 
independence where there is even the tolerated theory of ascendancy. 
The Catholic must be as free, as independent, as privileged, as the Pro¬ 
testant. He must have the same rights, the same prerogatives, the 
same social and civil honors, as the classes to which the State has here¬ 
tofore accorded undue and undeserved favors ; and over the whole land 
the equal breath of liberty must pass, vivifying and fertilizing all it 
touches, and imparting fresh vigor and bloom to the drooping plants 
that have so long waited for its advent. 

Again, though the Nation can afford to wait for clauses of a Tenant 
Bight Act, Reformers should like to know at once whether a tenant is 
to have a right in the improvements executed by himself. But, though 
it is the first duty of the Opposition to obtain information on these 
points, it is not the whole duty of man. I hold that the leaders of the 
Opposition must be equally frank in laying down the broad lines of a 
Liberal policy towards Ireland. The time is past for saying to Ireland, 
“ Open your mouth, and shut your e^yes, and see what a new Ministry 
will send you.” Reformers want to know from their own leaders, also, 
the general outlines of their creed. Of course, Reformers are well 
aware that it cannot be any upholding of the present ecclesiastical set¬ 
tlement of Ireland; but,—Is it to be some tentative scheme, or something 
broad and substantial ? For my own part, I declare, that, as regards 
the Irish Church, my policj 7 simply is ecclesiastical equality for all. 
The Liberal party does not deserve to seize or retain power unless it 
makes perfect equality of all Irish Churches and Sects a Cabinet ques¬ 
tion by which to stand or fall. That equality can be carried out in 
more than one way. It might be attained by granting equal facilities 
for the equivalent endowment of all Sects, and the equality of all in the 
eye of the law, or by the impartial disendo wment and disestablishment 
of all. It is a question for statesmen to consider which is the better 
policy, and it is also their business to ascertain the wishes of the Irish 
peopie, and the form in which they would desire to see the principle of 
equality embodied. The Liberals must now advance on the position, 
and enforce equality, either by levelling up or by levelling down. If 
English, Scottish, and Irish Tories are so mad and blind as to persist 
in refusing their assent to equality, their refusal will simply sweep 
them from the scene, reduce them to the functions of a bigoted opposi¬ 
tion, and leave the Liberals—free from any just imputation of faction— 
to execute the grave and imperative duty of the hour in their own way. 
If the work is not done, the declaration ol a fixed resolve to do it by 
the Liberal leaders will stir up men’s minds like the sound of a mighty 
trumpet, and give us all something to fight for, and, at the same time, 
something worthy of a fight. 

Although the Tory party is sure to split into sections,—some in- 




62 THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 

dining to mild Liberalism, and others to decided resistance and 
re-action,—and though it may be very difficult to foresee the compara¬ 
tive strength of the various divisions, there are, at the present time, 
measures before Parliament, and propositions which must soon be 
discussed therein, against which the Tories will do all in their power to 
defeat the desires of the great mass of the British people. It is very 
improbable that the Tories will satisfy public demand concerning the 
Irish State Church, and certain that they will vehemently resist plans 
like those of Mill and Bright for originating a free yeomanry pro¬ 
prietory on Irish soil. Not only the Tories, but the sham Liberals^ 
amongst the richer portion of the middle class, dislike the idea of 
changes of this description. Upon the Education question public 
opinion is, no doubt, progressing very fast, but a recent meeting of the 
body calling itself the “ Central Chamber of Agriculture” affords illus¬ 
tration of the difficulties which will be thrown in the way of educating 
the rural population. The town population, hitherto excluded from 
the Franchise, will be largely admitted by the new Beform Bill, and it 
is universally felt that to withhold education and bestow the Suffrage 
would be a suicidal proceeding. Not so in the rural districts. The 
agricultural laborer is still to be excluded from political rights, the 
tenant-farmer is still to be a modified vassal or retainer of the local 
Soil-Lord, and education would be a disturbing influence in such a 
system. Administrative Beform, as a substitute for Political Beform, 
was a foolish dream a few years since. The one could not be attained 
exceed through the other; and,—Does anyone believe that the Tory party 
will consent to great administrative improvements, involving a com¬ 
plete revolution in the army, navy, and diplomatic services, except 
under actual compulsion, too strong to resist? The Nation expects to 
be a great gainer by the Beform Bill, and will soon demand another if 
the present one should be so manipulated as to prove inefficient. The 
Beform Bill of 1832 was the precursor of an important series of mea¬ 
sures which the old Parliament would not have passed. In like man¬ 
ner, the new Parliament, whose advent is approaching, will be expected 
to originate a large and handsome series of Organic Beforms. There is 
a delusion running through the upper circles that no organic changes will 
be permitted,—that we shall have so many more voters on the register, 
and pretty much the same class of men in the House of the Common 
men. It may prove true that the House of the Common men will not 
be so extensively affected by the introduction of any large number of 
men differing from the old obstructive sort, but the temper and spirit 
of the body may be much improved by the accession to its ranks of a 
few more able Liberals, supported by public opinion. On every subject 
of importance for the future well-being of the Nation a great battle has 
to be fought between old parties and new. You are not a genuine Tory 
nor a true Liberal in disguise ; but whatever difficulties you may have 
with your party, and whatever concessions you may have had to make 
to their folly or to their selfish interests, you will, no doubt, try to 
teach them a few more lessons of concession as soon as the Liberals 
are in a position to show that they have the power to enforce them. 
The House of the Common men contains a dreadful lot of dummies 
amongst its pretended Liberals,—men who may often vote right, but 
who have no influence until questions come to a division. The Liberal 
cause cannot be properly served by such men. We want representa¬ 
tives who can assist in producing a Liberal tone of thought wherever 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


68 


they go. The Tories have no difficulty in getting orthodox and con¬ 
ventionally correct obstructives, but such people cannot discuss any 
subject with a show ot logical intelligence. They can look as wise as 
owls when silent, but speech betrays their folly. The Liberals must 
strengthen their already preponderant debating power, and then 
Toryism must succumb. 

I am, dear Sir, yours respectfully, and an humble but zealous literary 
laborer in the Cause which has a deep and abiding interest even for 
those who affect to despise it. 

JOHN SCOTT. 


LETTER Y I. 


Belfast, 50, Victoria Terrace, 

March 7 th , 1868. 

The Right Hon. 13. Disraeli, Prime 
Minister of Britain. 

Dear Sir, —You have made your first appearance in your new 
character in the House of the Common men on Thursday evening, 
the 5th current, amidst the cheers of those whom you have “ Edu¬ 
cated.” Your speech was brief, but its brevity was not that which is 
said to be the soul of wit. It merely expressed that your hobby was 
to be the same as Lord Derby's, except on Irish affairs. On that 
branch your explanation is postponed to Tuesday next. And you 
concluded your short speech by saying:—“I will not now go into 
details, which might be misapprehended; but we shall have, in a short 
time, an occasion to state our general policy and views with respect to 
Ireland, which we shall be prepared to recommend and to carry out. 
The delay which has taken place although unavoidable, is to be 
regretted; but the House may rely upon it, that there shall be no lack 
of energy or good-will on the part of the Government to make up for 
that delay in the public business, and we feel sure that we may rely on 
the cordial co-operation of the House.” The Times has of late thought 
to do you a service bv dwelling on your claims, as a man of letters, to 
the support of the literary fraternity. It has, however, brought down 
upon the well-intentioned Times the rebuke of one of the Ministerial 
organs, the Standard, which thinks, it sees sneers and sarcasms where 
the Times appears only to have meant to be complimentary. As the 
leading journal has certainly been friendly to you as the new Prime 
Minister, it was, at least, entitled to the benefit of a doubt. It seems, 
however, that, with the Carlton Club, the avowedly Ministerial jour¬ 
nals, and with no inconsiderable section of the Tory party, the less said 
about your authorship the better. They have adopted the idea that 
allusions to your books, and especially to such novels as “ Vivian 
Grey” and “ Coningsby,” are “low.” Horace Walpole, it is well 
known, did not care to be considered a man of letters, and rebuked his 
friend, Sir Horace Mann, for following the style of the magazines 
which occasionally referred to him as the “ learned gentleman.” The 
Tories, it seems, have the same feeling about you. They wish you to 
be regarded as a statesman to whom literature has been a graceful 
ornament, entitling you, indeed, to support from “the gentlemen of 



64 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


the Press,” but not justifying even friendly literary critics m openly 
speculating about wliat may be the feelings ot the author of V lvian 
Grey” and “ Coningsby” on attaining the position of which he has long 
dreamed, and which he told Lord Melbourne, before he had succeeded 
in being returned to the House of the Common men, that he intended 
one day to fill. The Standard, with the stately mansion at Grosvenor 
Gate, and the light brown liveries and powdered hair of the footmen 
full in view, asks ,— 11 Why should a man of letters be expected to carry 
into politics the devices and the resources of his profession ? What 
can be a more vulgar curiosity than that which carries the shop into 
political life ? But the Tory journal forgets that literature and politics 
combined have been your shop, and that they 7 have by 7 you never been 
separated. When y r ou were Chancellor of the Exchequer for the first 
time you said, “I am myself a gentleman of the Press, and have no 
other escutcheon.” If you were to be dissociated from literature, you 
would have to be dissociated from yourself; for most even of your novels, 
and all of them which have obtained any real popularity, have been 
political manifestos as much as literary productions. “ Coningsby 7 ” is, 
for instance, the best known of your novels. Have you, however, 
regarded it as purely a work of literary art, to be judged independently 7 
of any political or official conduct ? The Standard is apparently un¬ 
acquainted with your works. “ The main purpose of ‘ Coningsby,’ y 7 ou 
write yourself, after you had become one of the leaders of the Tory 7 
party, “ was to vindicate the just claims of the Tory party to be the 
popular political confederation of the country : a purpose which the 
author had more or less pursued from a very early period of life.” 
You afterwards remarked that you only 7 took fiction as an instrument 
to scatter your suggestions, and “ as the method which in the temper 
of the times offered the best chance of influencing public opinion.” 
You were, therefore, laying the foundations of your Premiership when 
writing “ Coningsby.” You would be yourself one of the first to dis¬ 
claim the pretension that between your literary works and your political 
acts there is an essential and diametrical difference. Even the cha¬ 
racters in “ Coningsby” were not considered purely imaginary. They 
were represented as photographs from real life, the author plainly 
saying that ‘ ‘ he had ventured to treat of events and characters of which 
he had some personal experience, not altogether without the impartiality 
of the future.” As a novelist, therefore, you were a politician, using 
that particular form of composition as a machine for the wider dissemi¬ 
nation of your ideas. Some of the opinions you deliberately 7 expressed 
in your novels, as well as in your other compositions, especially on 
Ireland and the Established Church, may be extremely 7 inconvenient 
to the Tories; but they cannot be ignored. They are on record : 
they expressed more than sentimental outpourings of the mind : they 
were the judgments of a matured politician on the facts before him;- 
and they will be found to correspond with similar enunciations in your 
speeches and most serious prose compositions. 

The fact that y 7 ou have written novels, political pamphlets, and 
biographies, before attaining the first post in the political world, ought 
not, however, to blind the judgment of literary 7 men as to the real sig¬ 
nificance of your political career. It was not to your authorship that 
you first owed the leadership'of the Tory party: nor is it to your 
authorship that you owe your appointment of Prime Minister. You 
won the affection and sympathy of the country gentlemen in 1846, by 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


65 


personally assailing Sir Robert Peel for becoming a Free-trader, and 
by becoming yourself a Protectionist, after having boasted two years 
before, that you were a Free-trader; that you had gone down to your 
constituents at Shrewsbury, and made them all Free-traders; that 
Mr. Pitt was a Free-trader; and that Free-trade was one of the recog¬ 
nized principles ot the Tory party. You won your position as Prime 
carrying a household suffrage Reform Bill in 1867, after 
opposing a moderate Reform Bill in 1866, and after refusing to reduce 
the Borough Franchise at all in 1859. You have politically done many 
things which will always be regarded as not creditable ; and I submit 
that literary men ought to judge the literary man who has attained the 
Premiership, by the same canons of criticism which they apply to 
wealthy commoners and noble lords who have filled that distinguished 
position. It would be to degrade, and not to elevate, the literary pro¬ 
fession, it writers were to look over, or lightly to blame in you, because 
you are one of themselves, what they would severely reprehend in a 
Sir Robert Peel, a Lord Melbourne, or a Lord Palmerston. You 
showed no consideration to Sir Robert Peel, even when that States¬ 
man, under the pressure of the Irish famine, was repealing the Corn 
Laws at a great personal sacrifice. Why should you, because you are 
a literary man, expect that forbearance and indulgence which you never 
evinced to other men when they have stood in the way of your ambi¬ 
tion? Britain has had in Parliament, and in high positions in the 
Cabinet, authors whose literary abilities have been far superior to yours, 
and whose careers have been far less tortuous. Addison, Burke, and 
Macaulay have written books, to which nothing that has come from your 
pen will bear a moment’s comparison. They were all three in the House 
of the Common men, and in the first ranks of their party. Addison 
was a Secretary of State at a comparatively early period. Burke was, 
for a generation, one of the leaders of the Whigs, their great “ Educator,” 
and one of the most eminent political philosophers that has ever sat in 
the House of the Common men. Mr. Macaulay’s political life began 
not very much earlier than yours; but he entered the House of the 
Common men, and attained a great position much sooner, sat in Cabi¬ 
nets, and at the time when, much to the regret of his friends, he 
retired from public life, they would have given him any place he cared 
to fill. It is strange that you are the only literary man for whom, as 
a politician, indulgence has been requested, from the mere fact of your 
being a man of letters. It was said, when such appeals were made for 
you, at the time you first became Chancellor of the Exchequer, that 
the maxim, “Honor among thieves,” could never be very honorable 
for the “ gentlemen of the Press” to adopt when criticizing the actions 
of one of their band. The same reply may be given to your literary 
apologists at this time, on the ground that you are a man of letters. 
The Times is not justified in putting forward this plea for exceptional 
indulgence ; neither is the Standard justifiable in disregarding your 
authorship in considering your political conduct. If you now contra¬ 
dict the tenor of your life, and act patriotically, disinterestedly, and 
nobly, so much the better for yourself and for the credit of the literary 
profession. But if you act as you have done on so many other occa¬ 
sions, disregarding the ordinary laws of the political game, as well as 
the ordinary ideas of political morality, it will be the duty of the “gen¬ 
tlemen of the Press” to blame as strongly such unscrupulousness on 
the part of the literary Prime Minister, as they would do if the First 


66 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


Lord of the Treasury—whose conduct deserved censure—were a large- 
acred squire, a wealthy merchant, or an Earl, Marquis, or Duke of the 
purest blue blood. The Times says your triumph, when you entered 
the House of the Common men as First Lord of the Treasury, amid 
sympathetic cheers from all sides, was complete. That you may never 
attain a greater exaltation. That the nation will not grudge you the 
glory of that hour. The right to take place must, however, be distin¬ 
guished from the right to keep it. What had you to offer as the pro¬ 
gramme of your Cabinet ? You proceeded to declare that the new 
Government inherited the opinions and principles of Lord Derby’s 
Ministry. It is a disappointment to find it formally announced that 
the opening of the second seal is to reveal no more than that of the 
first. As to the domestic policy of the Ministry, you had a surprise 
for your friends. You declared that the Administration would pursue 
a liberal policy. The Opposition cheered, and those on the Govern¬ 
ment benches who were not too much astonished stared with great 
eyes, and laughed with alien lips. There is a possibility that, in study¬ 
ing the House of Common men you have paid too little attention to the 
Nation outside it, which has to he governed. It is necessary to be 
more than a master of Parliamentary management. Government, 
according to the exigencies of the situation, does not stir an enlightened 
massg they require enunciation of principles and an unequivocal de¬ 
claration of policy. It remains to he seen whether you will rise to the 
emergency. You are undoubtedly in a position of great difficulty, and 
you cannot be harshly judged if you prefer to shape your course as ap¬ 
parent necessities suggest; hut, if you would do something more than 
secure the mere passing support of a moribund Parliament, you must 
have greater things to propose for national consideration and approval 
than you announced on last Thursday night. 

Nature was stronger than Art last Thursday with you; as the new 
Premier you did your singular and unparalleled personal triumph the 
justice of being so impressed by it, as to be obviously unnerved. Oratoric- 
ally, your maiden or first speech as Prime Minister of Britain was not a 
good specimen of your powers ; it hung fire, was awkward in phrase, and 
produced no effect apart from the speaker. Strange as it may seem, 
and notwithstanding your being a practised tactician and an easy victor 
in so many fights, you were positively nervous as you laid your hand 
on the garland, and heard your own voice salute you “ Imperator.” 
Such a xihenomenon could not have happened if you had not a quick 
imagination as well as a cold and quiet will; but the British public 
will regard it as more to your credit than any set and well delivered 
speech, cumbrous with careful ornaments, and fluent with studied 
impromptus. It was quite evident on last Thursday night, that the man 
whom the House of the Common men once refused to hear was at last 
thoroughly realizing his revenge as you rose to announce yourself the 
head of the British Cabinet. After you had thought, and talked, about 
the supreme historical height so often that the sonorous Parliamentary 
phrases in which you spoke of it, and even the whisper of your own ambi¬ 
tion, had lost a little of their meaning, the actual accomplished fact 
had for you a seriousness, a solemnity which you could not resist. 
You were cheered as you arrived at the House, and as you entered it,— 
if not vociferously, at least enough to touch you ; and nobody better 
than yourself could describe if you were now writing a fiction, the 
sentiments which would crowd upon a politician in" your position. 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


07 

Probably for tlic first time in your varied life 3^011 were conscious of 
events which outstrip even fiction; and your manner certainly conveyed 
the impression of a deep emotion more eloquently than your words. 
The House appeared to understand, by its respectful attention and 
quick cheers, something more than you, with all your skill, managed 
to utter. You did not speak glibly, like a winner who had gained the 
prize and already undervalued it, but like one wdio bore it proudly and 
with emotion, as well worth, even for its own sake, the long efforts of 
a life. Certainly, in your usual moods, you, wdio were once “a gentle¬ 
man of the Press," would not have provoked a laugh, and then a louder 
one, by promising the Nation “a Liberal,” a “truly Liberal” policy, 
which you hastened to explain as the old original Tory policy of 
“tradition.” Nor would you, in your less natural moments, have 
proffered yourself so humbly as the political legatee of Lord Derby’s 
opinions—right and wrong, popular and unpopular. The whole speech 
was characterized by a strange modesty, and by a curious unskillful¬ 
ness, graceful in the mouth of one to whose self-reliance and tact thirty 
patient years bear witness. You seldom or never succeeded more than 
Avhen you hesitated whilst announcing yourself the established successor 
of Chatham, Canning, Peel, and Derby. 

The large assemblage of members and strangers which awaited your 
first appearance, as Prime Minister, in the House of the Common men 
was probably much disappointed by the peculiarly concise and formal 
character of your speech; but your eulogy on Lord Derby, and your 
general profession of good intentions, were more appropriate, in your 
own estimation, to the occasion than any elaborate exposition of policy. 
You always endeavor to impress your hearers with your good designs, 
and to prevent future events from casting their shadows before them: 
you are largely developed in Secretiveness ; and you are an adept in 
the Art of “make-believe." You have had abundant opportunities of 
appreciating the qualities and great condescensions of your august 
predecessor, and it must be supposed that you must have some ground, 
as Avell as some deep design, for the almost startling statement that 
Lord Derby w T as always the most hard-working member of his Cabinet, 
while he appeared to outside spectators only a brilliant and desultory 
amateur. Whatever may have been your deep design for plastering 
your patron, you w r ere certainly mistaken,—to give it the mildest 
possible name,—when you expressed the opinion that no greater master 
in the arrangement of details ever existed, for among Lord Derby’s 
cotemporaries, Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone were indisputably 
his superiors in the knowledge of all the intricacies of administration 
and finance. In Parliament, however, as in the pulpits of certain 
Sects, it is the business of each successor to expatiate on the supposed 
or real merits of the former occupant of his chair. No one has a 
greater command than yourself of ornate rhetoric, and a little generous 
exaggeration,—well buttered up for the occasion,—was not at all likely 
to jar very harshly on the feelings of your party, or on the ears of 
many of the audience assembled in the House of the Common men. 
It was not your intention to afford them the additional indulgence of 
gratified curiosity. As you very gravely admitted, it was natural that 
the House of the Common men should receive some intimation of the 
principles of the new Administration; and you, accordingly, proceeded 
to state that the Government would pursue abroad a policy of peace 
without isolation, and that in domestic affairs it would be at the same 


E 


68 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


time truly Liberal and instinctively Tory. It was interesting to ascer¬ 
tain that you, like your Irish Secretary, deeply regretted the Suspen¬ 
sion of the Habeas Corpus in Ireland, and that you hoped that dis¬ 
affection was gradually disappearing. The House of the Common 
men was exhorted by you to proceed with circumspection, and with an 
anxious desire to conciliate the opinions of all parties in framing 
measures which will advance the prosperity and happiness of the Irish 
people,—and thus the time had arrived when the House became bound 
to hear you. There may, probably, be some practical difficulty in con¬ 
ciliating, for the same measures, the support of parties which aim at 
entirely incompatible objects; but there can be no doubt that it is 
desirable, if it is possible, to legislate for the benefit of Ireland. It is 
equally undeniable that Liberal and Tory tendencies are valuable in 
their proper place ; and a policy of peace lias become the most accepted 
of British principles or necessities. There was probably no particular 
use in your short address on last Thursday night: but there are times 
when it is decorous to speak, and inconvenient to give information. 
Truisms are, on the whole, less objectionable than paradoxes, and they 
afford no handle for debate. 

You certainly endeavored to prove to the satisfaction of your Tory 
followers, on your first appearance in the House, as Prime Minister of 
Britain, that Lord Derby exercised a sound judgment in recommending 
the Queen to entrust to you the task of forming and leading the Minis¬ 
try ; and that the most powerful member of the Cabinet, mentally con¬ 
sidered, ought always, if possible, to be also its nominal head; and 
that, even if you had been disposed to waive your undoubted claims to 
the post of Premier, you must have retained the lead of the House of 
the Common men, and the control of the general policy of the British 
Government. It is not at present the interest of any political party, I 
think, to weaken a Ministrv which must almost necessarily remain in 
office until after the first general election ; and it is evidently advan¬ 
tageous to the Nation at large that the Government should be so orga¬ 
nized and so managed as to possess the highest attainable efficiency. 
The rank and patronage which are still, however unjustly, annexed to 
the First Office in the State add considerably to the influence even of 
the ablest leader of the House of the Common men. Although there 
can be no doubt that Lord Russell gave a kind of steady and loyal 
support to his superior colleague, there arc still veteran politicians of 
extensive Parliamentary experience who freely assert that Mr. Glad¬ 
stone would have evidently carried his Reform Bill if lie had been First 
Lord of the Treasury. You are well aware that, any competitor who 
had been preferred to you, must either have been a Peer of secondary 
political rank, or the most considerable of your colleagues in the Lower 
House; and that the appointment of a nominal Prime Minister would 
only have been a public announcement that the Tory party felt no con¬ 
fidence in its real leader; and that you could not be expected to submit 
to the would-be independent and vigorous supremacy of Lord Stanley. 
In the House of the Common men, the arrangement which has been 
made will be even more popular than in the general community; for 
you have, by long experience and natural aptitude, become one of the 
most successful of Parliamentary leaders. Sir Robert Peel. Lord 
Palmerston, and Mr. Gladstone derived a considerable portion of their 
power over the House of the Common men from their general reputa¬ 
tion and influence throughout the Nation : but you have risen to poli- 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


G9 

tieal eminence almost exclusively witliin the walls of Parliament. 
Your more eloquent rival, Mr. Gladstone, lias often been baffled by 
your superiority in tact and temper, and you have almost uniformly 
avoided unnecessary collision with personal susceptibility. Your ex¬ 
tensive knowledge of human nature taught you that the copious invec¬ 
tives and cutting sarcasms which first made you conspicuous in the 
House of the Common men were not the means by which a high posi¬ 
tion could be permanently retained. In the ordinary conduct of 
Parliamentary business, no leader of party is more courteous, or more 
habitually exempt from the weakness of irritability. Your opponents, 
and many of your admirers, complain that you have no deep convic¬ 
tions ; but there are many qualities,—as you know well by long expe¬ 
rience,—which the House of the Common men prefers to real anxious 
and painful earnestness. The conduct of the Keform Bill of last year 
through the House of the Common men, was proved, by many 
just and legitimate criticisms on its peculiar morality and policy, 
to have been a marvel of dexterous management. Parliamentarv skill 
is not, however, one of the most exalted of human gifts, but yet it is 
extremely useful to a Minister. Early experience will show whether 
you will succeed in reigning over the Tory party which you have long 
governed. Your high-born, blue-blooded, and wealthy followers have 
always affected a special devotion to Lord Derby, as an excuse for ren¬ 
dering substantial allegiance to a less congenial chief. In private they 
have often depreciated you as their leader, or even denounced you as an 
adventurer ; and, from time to time, little clusters of malcontents have 
whispered to each other imaginary intrigues for deposing you in favor 
of a more genuine Tory. You,—the object of their jealousy,—have 
wisely remained deaf and blind to indications of dislike, declining to 
listen to the gossip of the guard-room as long as there was no appear¬ 
ance of mutiny in the ranks. Time and habit have confirmed the dis¬ 
cipline of the Tory party, and its more sagacious members are well 
aware that they must choose between you, their present leader, and 
utter political defeat. The most dangerous crisis in your recent career 
was the secession of Lord Cranborne, with two of his colleagues, 
from the Cabinet, and probably you might then have failed to keep the 
party together, if you had not been identified in policy and fortune with 
Lord Derby ; but, a peril passed over is often an additional security, 
and the party which adhered to the Keform Bill through all its numer¬ 
ous metamorphoses is pledged against any unseasonable squeamishness 
of scruples. Yet it is undoubtedly true, that you, as Premier, will be 
followed by many unwilling supporters. In Lord Derby you possessed 
a Queen-bee, which enabled you vicariously to command the attach¬ 
ment of the Hive ; and in your own person you must now discover 
some other method of appealing to the instinct of obedience ; but the 
bark of discontented Tories has always been worse than their bite, and 
you may re-assure yourself by remembering, that, thirty years ago, the 
more restless members of the Tory party were always murmuring 
against the growing Liberalism of Sir Kobert Peel. As the Tory party 
declined to follow Lord Cranborne on his retirement, it has no avail¬ 
able candidate to set up against you, except Lord Stanley, who is 
deeply suspected of political heterodoxy,—as the result of carefully 
studying some of the rudiments of Political Science. 

With the exception of the sycophantic and Tory Idea-Maker , Lord 
Cairns, you have been unable to procure any addition of strength to 


70 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


your Government. If the seceders of last year are omitted from the 
calculation, the present occupants of office exhaust the capacity of the 
party, and even encroach on the wider field of its administrative in¬ 
competence. Mr. Hunt has not yet attained the Parliamentary posi¬ 
tion which has hitherto been ordinarily supposed to he indispensable to 
a Chancellor of the Exchequer. A ready and industrious manipulation 
of figures, and a useful assistant to a Minister, he has sometimes 
treated grave and serious business questions with ill-judged levity; and 
it is very questionable whether he lias mastered the higher principles 
of finance. The appointment of Sir Stafford Northcote, who is the 
pupil and financial follower of Mr. Gladstone, would have commanded 
greater confidence, hut there was no candidate ready for the India 
Office, except probably the ubiquitous Sir John Pakington. If the rumor 
that Sir Stafford Rorthcote aspires to the Viceroyalty of India is 
well founded, he may, probably, have been unwilling to resign the 
Secretaryship of State, in which he is gaining experience, to support 
his claim. In the gilded House of the Lords, you must rely, almost 
exclusively, on Lord Cairns to defend the policy of the Government, 
whatever it may be, on important occasions; but it will be necessary 
for you to appoint another Ministerial representative, as the Chancellor 
cannot properly conduct the ordinary business of the' House of the 
Hereditary Law-makers of Britain. Of the respectable Peers who be¬ 
long to the Cabinet, the Duke of Richmond alone possesses even the 
most elementary qualifications of a Parliamentary leader. The Duke 
of Buckingham would be more unpopular,—and, of course, the Duke of 
Marlborough is out of the question; while Lord Malmesbury, —who, 
by the favor of Lord Derby, has hitherto been occasionally employed 
as his Lieutenant,—is more than ordinarily deficient in the faculty of 
speech, and in Parliamentary tact and judgment. It is impossible that 
you can, even if Lord Malmesbury continues to retain the Privy Seal, 
use as the mouthpiece of the Government an artificial nobleman, who, 
having to announce the change of Ministry, perpetrated two or three 
awkward blunders in as many sentences. Lord Malmesbury might 
have easily remembered that he had not served, as he stated, long under 
Lord Derby in office, because Lord Derby has onty been Prime Minis¬ 
ter for the collective term of three or four years. It was a graver 
mistake to announce that you, who were practically chief of an almost 
unchanged Cabinet, was at the moment “trying to form a Government, 
if possible.” Lord Malmesbury probably does injustice to himself in 
Parliament; but his management of the Reform Bill, during Lord 
Derby’s illness in the course of last Summer, alone proves his incom¬ 
petence to act as Leader in the House of the Lords. The Duke of 
Richmond is not known to have paid serious attention to politics, but 
he is a steady, courteous, and accurate man of business, who may be 
trusted to comprehend any matter which may require his attention. 
Whenever there is any appearance of a political battle to stem the tide 
of progress, and throw dust into the Nation’s eyes, of course, Lord 
Cairns must take command of the Ministerial forces. Criticism on the 
composition of the Government would be more interesting, if its tenure 
of office were not at the same time provisionally certain and prospec¬ 
tively insecure. Only unforeseen circumstances can cause a change of 
Ministry in the present year, and it is improbable that the Government 
will survive the first Session of the Reformed Parliament. Indepen¬ 
dently of all special subjects of controversy, the constituencies will 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


71 


almost certainly return a Liberal majority, and there will be no diffi¬ 
culty in finding a sufficient ground for ejecting the Tory Government. 
As the political prospects must be as clear to you as to external obser¬ 
vers, it may be safely conjectured that you will make an effort to illus¬ 
trate the term of your respite by some striking legislative achievement. 
You have not succeeded in convincing the mass of the people forming 
the Nation that you are the champion of Reform ; but it is barely pos¬ 
sible that you may solve some of the disputed problems of Education, 
or even that you may pass some useful Irish measure. You have been 
uniformly consistent in a prudent respect for the feelings of Roman 
Catholics; and, if you abstain from offering them some plausible con¬ 
cession, you will certainly not have been embarrassed by any prejudice 
of your own. The fate of the Scotch Reform Rill, or of its principal 
enactments, is still doubtful; but the probabilities are likely in favor 
of the measure, and of its Irish supplement. The greatest difficulty 
which will occur consists in the desire of the progressive party to post¬ 
pone all important measures until the meeting of the future Parlia¬ 
ment. The supporters of the Government cannot cordially desire 
change for its own sake, and they will not probably understand the 
expediency of burning the prairie before them, in time to deprive the 
following conflagration of fuel. You have to move a tenacious mass 
by the aid of reluctant workmen, and you will probably have to console 
yourself for political failure by the reflection, that, in spite of numerous 
obstacles, you have realized your highest dreams of personal ambition. 
A faint sympathy, resembling the interest which attends the hero of a 
Novel, is naturally aroused, when a daring and patient climber has 
reached the summit level. It remains to be seen whether the barren 
honor of the performance is to be its sole reward, or whether a difficult 
pass will be traversed into fertile valleys beyond. It may be confidently 
assumed, I think, that you hope to do something more than to return 
with the mere satisfaction of having accomplished the ascent. 

“ Mr. Disraeli succeeding Lord Derby as Premier, and Lord Derby 
resigning in favor of Mr. Disraeli,” says an inspired critic through the 
Press, “is an event which will necessarily form one of the most impor¬ 
tant and curious political episodes of the present age. The position 
occupied by the present First Lord of the Treasury is in itself, as well 
as in its surroundings, pregnant with contrasts which are calculated to 
puzzle as well as interest, every reflecting mind. Although belonging 
ostensibly to the same Tory party, and holding apparently the same 
kind of views; although struggling for the same questionable cause, 
and striving at the same end, no two men could be more dissimilar in 
natural character or acquired qualifications than those who, working 
together, have reached in succession the same goal. Lord Derby had 
rank and station to make his claim to the leadership of his party a 
matter not only of recognition, but of pride. Descended from a house 
famed in the annals of English history, bearing a name at which 
Royalty itself might not blush, he came as by presumptive right to 
that foremost place which his commanding talents entitled him to oc¬ 
cupy and adorn. His successor had no such advantage. Sprung from 
an humble and alien stock, with prejudice against his race and creed, 
and hostility to his pretensions and efforts, he succeeded by the sheer 
dint of talent and perseverance ; and mounting gradually and patiently 
over all obstacles, attained the position which enabled him to receive, 
with becoming dignity* the mantle which his leader wore. But it is 


72 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


not in these social relations alone that the contrast between the two 
Premiers mainly consists. It becomes more glaring and more striking, 
as well as more inscrutable, when we examine their policy and tactics. 
Although Tory by profession, their views and purposes were almost 
diametrically opposed. Lord Derby was always receding from Libe¬ 
ralism : Mr. Disraeli was always making coy and secret advances to¬ 
wards it. Lord Derby was always stopping short at half measures. 
Mr. Disraeli was always indirectly struggling for whole ones, and 
dragging his party, by the force of his genius, into the same tendency. 
When,—to take one or two notable instances,—Lord Derby proposed a 
Tenant Eight Bill in 1845, it was, probably, the most comprehensive 
and Liberal one ever introduced into Parliament, with the exception 
of Sharman Crawford’s and the late Judge Shee’s: that Bill was ex¬ 
tinguished in the House of the Lords, and, as the judgment of his peers 
reversed his convictions, Lord Derby at once abandoned the stand he 
had taken on the Land question, and never afterwards, whether in 
office or out of it, countenanced anything like an adequate settlement 
of it. He pursued a similar course with regard to Free Trade,—advo¬ 
cating one day its principles, and then suddenly bringing himself to 
oppose them in the ranks of the Protectionists. His dealing with the 
Church Establishment in Ireland was characterized by the same vacil¬ 
lation and inconsistency. In 1832, he laid the axe to the tree, but he 
timidh' refrained from applying it to the root. Some rotten branches 
were lopped off, but the trunk remained intact, and the work of Reform 
incomplete. In 1850, when the extension of the Franchise came to 
the surface, and could not be repressed, Lord Derby ‘ meddled with 
and muddled it,’ and went out of office without ever approaching a set¬ 
tlement of it. It was only when Mr. Disraeli became really the mas¬ 
ter of the Tory party—when, after experiencing the bitterness and 
humiliation incidental to the cold shade of prolonged Opposition, the 
rank-and-file of the Tories yielded blind obedience to the one man who 
kept them together, and sustained their hopes, that Lord Derby belied, 
by one bold and vigorous step, all the principles of his previous career. 
In his Reform plunge he outstripped Democrat and Demagogue ; and, 
from the high pinnacle of Tory sternness and obstinacy, suddenly de¬ 
scended to the broad and revolutionary platform of Household Suffrage. 
It was the last act of his political life. It must have caused him many 
a pang and many a regret to perform it. It will be for those who are 
interested in his fame to reconcile it with his principles; but it is easy 
to discover the influence which prevailed in effecting the wonderful and 
unexpected change. Mr. Disraeli’s teaching prevailed. His wily in¬ 
tellect had done its work; his ingenuity had triumphed. Through 
what honeyed draughts he administered his powerful medicine must 
remain a secret: but that it has wrought its effects, and produced 
the desired results, may be seen in the astonishing events of the day. 
And now the practical question arises—a question which most deeply 
concerns the people of Ireland, and which transcends in importance 
abstract considerations and party squabbles—it is this:—Mill Mr. 
Disraeli be able to lead his party as he has led them on to Reform ?— 
will he be able to carry them on to greater undertakings and nobler 
triumphs ? Ireland has long been waiting for the hour which seems at 
hand. For years she has been sitting patiently and humbly at the 
doors of Parliament for relief. Her voice of complaint and oi* sorrow 
has never been hushed, and only varied by the stern cry of dissatisfac- 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


I'd 


tion and disappointment. Her demands can no longer be ignored: 
they must be dealt with boldly, or as boldly repudiated. There is no 
other course open to the statesman, or possible to Government. Has 
Lord Derby, conscious of this, and unwilling to involve himself in fur¬ 
ther inconsistencies, laid down the wand of office, and allowed another 
less burthened with scruples, and more free from trammels, to take it 
up ? The Land question, and the Church question, and the Education 
question, are lying ready for Mr. Disraeli’s manipulation. They are 
untouched; and they offer to genius and wisdom a golden opportunity 
which true magnanimity would seize with an avaricious grasp. A few 
days more, and the programme of Ministers, with reference to Ireland, 
will be before the world, and we will then know whether Mr. Disraeli 
is really a statesman, anxious to signalize his term of office by solid 
and progressive legislation—by measures of impartial and inflexible 
justice, or whether he is a mere placeman, playing a selfish game, and 
anxious only for the temporary success of an adventurer.” 

Meantime, upon the really pressing and paramount question of 
efficient legislation which you defer till Tuesday,—the all-impor¬ 
tant question of Ireland,—the national voice is not for this or for 
that statesman, not for this or for that party even, but for the right, 
the sufficient, and the remedial measure. Whoever gives it to us is, 
for the nonce, the leader of the country. The one concession on which 
the Liberal party insists is, that justice shall be done to that part of 
the Nation of which you spoke so delicately as “an interesting portion.” 
What the Nation w T ants, and must have, is not the scheme of any par¬ 
ticular section, but a course of action as regards the grievances of Ire¬ 
land—and, above all, as regards the burden and insult of an alien 
Church—which will satisfy Ireland, and so far make her reconciled. 
Less will not merely be useless, but will certainly be followed by a 
great deal more than this. It is not an adverse party, it is an imperial 
crisis, which exacts action from you; and I trust that those behind you 
understand the position as w T ell as you do. History will efface your 
administration from her tablets with a contemptuous stroke of the pen, 
if you and your Cabinet try to dodge the stern necessities of the hour, 
with make-believe professions and ingenious delays. You promise the 
Nation a policy on Tuesday, and undertake, if it should be found fault 
with, to defend it. The Nation awaits the declaration; and if the spirit 
of that policy be large, bold, and satisfying, the Liberal Press should 
be the last to spoil a great measure by hurrying its authors faster than 
its many details can allow well-meaning men to go. A clear and ho¬ 
nest pledge of justice to Ireland will begin to heal her wounds, and hush 
her cries, long before that justice can be finally consummated. But 
the pledge must be clear and honest, for her case is past the reach of 
legislative globules; and the next Parliament will show scant patience 
towards those, on either side, who trifle with the principle of religious 
equality, or with the deadly peril which troubles Britain while Ireland 
is angry and unhappy. Ireland has been too long the battle-ground 
of parties, the result of whose conflicts was not designed to, nor 
never did, affect the country beneficially. Whig and Tory have each 
in turn taken up Irish grievances, in order to gain a temporary advan¬ 
tage over an opponent. Professional agitators and frightened place¬ 
men have used them to effect their own objects; and, their end gained, 
the Irish question, which had been so used, was then flung away as a 
very worthless thing. 


74 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


But there are Tories who cry out for Reform as lustily as the most 
suspicious Democrat or the most obnoxious agitator. There are some 
Tories who boldly assert that there are grave and numerous evils to he 
redressed, and amongst them they give the Established Church the 
first place. Nor will the abolition of this monster iniquity satisfy 
them. They call for a settlement of the land question , and, despairing 
of even these remedies being sufficient to effect the object in view, they 
advocate a partial repeal of the Union, and dazzle the Irish people with 
faint glimpses of a local Legislature attending to the immediate wants 
and providing for the more pressing exigencies of the Nation. There 
is a poetical tinge about their programme which brings it inconveniently 
near the hallucinations which make the Tories believe in the extinction 
of Eenianism by Royal smiles and the restoration of public security by 
an address. Nevertheless, their views are solid and seasonable, and de¬ 
serve more than passing consideration. And here I must remark that 
there is something strange and significant, not merely in the promi¬ 
nence given to the question of Repeal, hut in the manner in which that 
prominence is received and acquiesced in. A few months ago it would 
have been rank treason to moot the subject; now T , Tories like Mr. 
Butler Johnstone, and ultra-loyalists like Mr. Seymour, discuss it 
seriously, and the more it is discussed the less dreadful does it appear, 
either as a remedy or a change. One is almost tempted to believe in 
the possibility of its realization. Every time it is brought on the tapis, 
bright hopes and glorious visions spring from it with renewed fresh¬ 
ness. It is impossible to shut out from the mind the associations with 
which it is connected, or the prospects which it shadow's forth. The 
Irish people think of the old time when the Irish Lords and Commons 
sat in College Green, and constituted a Parliament as free and inde¬ 
pendent as that of Britain itself. They think of the genius that was 
there displayed—of the patriotism which corruption could not stifle— 
of the courage which power could not subdue—and of the honor which 
intrigue could not taint. They recall the memories of such patriotic 
men as Lucas, Flood, Burke, and Grattan, Plunket, and Curran ; 
and they think of what Ireland would be to-day with such talent to 
serve her, such zeal to support her, such wisdom to direct and guide 
her. They think of all that has been lost during the sixty years in 
which Ireland has had no nursery of such greatness, and of all that 
might have been gained had it been preserved in its purity and integ¬ 
rity. But then the question arises,—Is it possible to realize the aspi¬ 
rations which naturally spring from these historical associations ? Are 
the circumstances of the country, and the peculiar relations of the em¬ 
pire, such as would render indulgence in the hope something more 
substantial than reliance on a shadow ? I fear not. All discussion 
about the undoubted advantages of Repeal is rendered vain by the cer¬ 
tainty of its present and prospective impossibility. England will never, 
of her own free will, revoke the Union which she labored so hard to 
establish, and which she deemed cheaply bought by lasting infamy and 
dishonor. As obstinate in retention as she is unscrupulous in acquisi¬ 
tion, she will not resign the advantage which it cost her so much to 
obtain, and which pride and interest make it imperative to uphold. 
This being so,—Is it worth while to disturb the popular mind by vain 
representations of visionary schemes, and to direct popular strength 
from what is within its reach to what is beyond its grasp ? I think 
not: the policy is a fatal one, and can only eventuate in increased in- 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


75 


jury to the country that pursues it. O’Connell wasted the most pre¬ 
cious years of his life in the advocacy of Repeal. The millions who 
cheered him on, in his efforts, the host of talent that seconded his 
labor, the mighty influences which he commanded would have been 
powerful enough to have accomplished almost anything but the one 
thing, which seemed to vanish as it was approached. Had the mon¬ 
ster meetings which were held at Tara and elsewhere—had the burning 
eloquence which swayed the masses been directed towards a settlement 
of the Church question or the Land question, all traces of ascendency 
would be now buried in the dust, and a happy, prosperous, and con¬ 
tented peasantry -would be flourishing on the soil. In 1843, it was 
possible to have wrung from the British Parliament any measures short 
of a repeal of the Union. The pursuit of the latter scheme kept every¬ 
thing else in abeyance, and no advance was made on the road of Re¬ 
form, which w~as not only accessible, but which invited advancement. 
Many Reformers are in danger of falling into a similar mistake at the 
present time. The occasion is ripe for action. The British Parliament 
can no longer refuse to deal with the Irish difficulty, nor can Britain 
afford, in the face of Europe, to rest satisfied with the ignoble quackery 
which has been the shame of her legislation. Events have done for 
the country what the genius of O’Connell accomplished in his day. A 
rare and golden opportunity has presented itself. If wisely, boldly, and 
honestly utilized, it may prove the most blessed period of Ireland’s che¬ 
quered history; if thrown away, it may never come again. Nothing 
would so much contribute to the disaster, I fear, as the rash, inju¬ 
dicious advocacy of impracticable schemes. This would be to put the 
game completely in the hands of the Tory Government. Nothing 
would please Tory Statesmen better than to waste session after session 
in useless debates, upon topics which they are determined never 
seriously to entertain, and so make those precious moments pass idly 
and fruitlessly, which might be turned to great and lasting advantage. 
Moreover, it should be borne in mind that every step taken in the right 
direction brings a Nation nearer to the end at which it aims. Every 
petty reform, every trifling acquisition, every insignificant gain, are 
stepping-stones to higher and more important results. The abolition 
of the Established Church ten years ago, the settlement of the Land 
question five years ago, would have done more for Repeal than any 
amount of terrorism and agitation can now effect. The plain duty, 
then, of Reformers is to grasp at what is tangible, and not to overlook 
what is within their ready reach. If ordinary prudence and firmness 
be manifested, a few months must witness the downfall of ascendency, 
and a fairer settlement of the land question than has yet been attempted. 
With this vantage-ground, the way to further triumphs will be easy; 
but, if the golden opportunity be wasted in empty speculations and 
idle dreams—if, above all, excuses for inaction be given to those who 
are only too willing to take advantage of them—Irishmen and their 
representatives will deserve to remain in the position in which they 
are, and to bear to the end, the badge of servitude which they have 
borne so long. Men like you can afford to be empyrics at the coun¬ 
try’s expense; but, for those who are enlightened by suffering, there is 
one plain duty, and that is, to insist, without a moment’s delay, on the 
redress which is attainable, and then they can prepare, with renewed 
strength, for fresh struggles and greater triumphs. 

A great opportunity is about being afforded to the British Parlia- 


THE SHARP SPEAR ANI) FLAMING SWORD OF 


7(5 


ment for proving its efficiency, as the main instrument of the Govern¬ 
ment of the United Queendom. On Tuesday next the member for Cork 
will submit to the House of Common men a proposition which justice 
calls for, which policy ought to approve of, and which it is impossible 
to ignore without an abnegation of the rights and principles which are 
essential to the preservation of society. The course adopted by Mr* 
Maguire can neither be overlooked nor contemned. His position and 
character entitle him to take a leading part in all questions affecting 
his country’s interests. These interests have been dear and precious to 
him. He has sacrificed much for their maintenance, and he has never 
once placed the performance of a public duty in subordination to a 
personal feeling or a personal prejudice. When such a man speaks, it 
is more than folly to discard his warnings and repudiate his advice. 
He is a skillful physician administering to Iris country's ills—a tried 
and trusted one,—with experience, with sincerity, and with devotion ; 
and what he suggests and advises should be received with respectful 
consideration, and weighed with the calmness and caution of judicial 
prudence, if not with the impartiality of judicial integrity. No one denies 
that unfortunate Ireland is sadly in need of remedial measures. No 
one denies that she needs some strong hand to drag her out of the mire 
in which slie is plunged. No one denies that, for centuries, she 
has been almost the scandal of civilization. I do not here attach 
blame to any party in the State for faults that can only be remedied by 
advanced enlightenment and new born zeal; but I do expect that some 
word of comfort, some promise of hope, some strong manifestation of 
rigid consistency, and some reliable determination of pursuing an 
inflexible purpose, will be put forth at the moment when expectation 
excited to the utmost, makes confidence a necessity* of trust, and faith 
indispensable to security. The opportunity is great in its resources. 
Men like Mr. Maguire do not turn favorable occasions for national 
good to selfish purposes. He and those who think and work with him 
are the links which bind the Irish people to the British Constitution. 
They stand between the specters of the past and the visions of the 
future. Anxious to soothe animosity, to wipe away antipathies, to 
promote union, and to generate that identity of feeling and purpose 
without which the peace of society is an impossibility, they are the 
real friends of the important interests of which prejudice represents 
them to be the enemies. This is the time to speak out. The hour of 
vacillation and of that greater evil, deliberate deception, is past. The 
public mind has been aroused; the almost dying expectation of the 
Nation’s mind has been revived, and if disappointment and despair 
ensue, if the next debate end in mere vague promises, idle platitudes, 
or ingenious devices, for the perpetuation of the old system of delay, 
it cannot be wondered at, that, even the soberest of politicians will 
distrust the State machinery, which its guardians either dread or refuse 
to put to the test of efficiency. In every sense of the word has the 
Irish debate of the next week been a long postponed debate,—post¬ 
poned not merely for the last few weeks, but for the last half-century. 
It so happens, however, that the circumstances of the present year, as 
I have already observed, are especially favorable to a fair discussion. 
While the responsible Government is not expected to lay its large and 
final measures on the table of the House at once, the' Opposition, of 
course, has no idea of bringing in any ready-drawn Bill. Nevertheless, 
without entering into details, public writers may discuss the great 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


77 

principles oi a true Irisli policy, and the leading men of the Imperial 
Legislature may lay down the broad lines of the schemes by which 
they hope to regenerate Ireland, and give peace and prosperity to the 
people. It is also pretty clear that we shall not he precipitated into a party 
fight,—at all events this year. In the first place, the Liberals are weil 
inclined to give you ample opportunity to try your hand on a task 
much more difficult than the “Education” of your party; and this 
sense of justice is quickened by another consideration. A dissolution 
just now,—and you have that card in your own hand,—would he 
exceedingly inconvenient to individual members, since it would have to 
be followed by another next year to test the new Reform Bill; and it 
would be additionally awkward for the Liberal party, as the result of 
a general election now would be determined by the present restricted 
constituencies, '[’lie Nation shall therefore probably see what is rarely 
observed in the House of the Common men,—a clear contest of prin¬ 
ciples and policies,—a discussion not encumbered with details of clauses 
and amendments, nor complicated with party issues, but opening up the 
whole question in the broadest fashion. Still it cannot be a mere 
debate. Whatever is said this year will not only be heard with eager 
attention by the House and by the country, hut will be twice tested. 
The new constituencies called into life by the Beform Bill will pro¬ 
nounce on the schemes foreshadowed by our statesmen next week. 
And next year, in Parliament itself, those schemes must be embodied 
in Bills to be laid on the table of the House, and fought out clause by 
clause. A serious responsibility, therefore, rests both on the Ministry 
and on the Opposition. It would he madness in any leading man to 
propose a scheme that cannot bear the rough popular scrutiny of the 
hustings, and that has not in it the elements of a practical solution, 
capable of being expressed in the precise clauses of a workable Act of 
Parliament, and likely to be carried out in Ireland itself. It is clear 
that any schemes with any probability of success must be calculated to 
promote the prosperity of Ireland, in accordance with the wishes of the 
majority of the Irish people, and must be acceptable, when explained, 
to the common intelligence of the majority of the British people. On 
the two great subjects,—the Church and the Land,—there is no lack of 
proposals, and it may be useful to state them in brief. 

The question of the Irish Church has naturally called forth a crowd 
of propositions. A few extreme Tories say, “Leave things as they 
arebut these are in a minority. A moderate section, represented 
by Lord Hardwicke, Lord Ellenborough, and the Quarterly Review , 
would leave the revenues of the Anglican Church in Ireland untouched, 
but would give the Roman Catholic priests a direct endowment, drawn, 
like the Reylum Donum , from the Consolidated Fund. Then come a 
series of proposals based on the distribution of the revenues of the 
Anglican Irish State Church amongst Anglicans, Romanists, and Pres¬ 
byterians. Lord Russell suggests that the division should take place 
strictly according to population; that the Anglicans, who now have all, 
should have little more than an eighth, the Presbyterians a little less 
than an eighth, and the Roman Catholics six-eighths. Mr. Aubrey de 
Vere -would divide the Church revenues amongst the three sects, with 
a due consideration of their numbers and wants,—for instance, taking 
note of the fact that the Protestant is a married and the Roman 
Catholic an unmarried clergy, and also of the well-built churches and 
Mebe houses already owned bv the Anglican Church. Mr. Herbert 


78 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


Stack proposes to divide the tithes,—which constitute the main part 
of the revenues, and which, in truth, are a burden merely on land,—- 
not according to population, hut according to the division of the soil 
amongst the various Sects, so that no Irish occupier should help to 
support any save his own clergy. Ignoring the priests who wished to 
he ignored, Mr. Stack would give the money to local committees of 
Homan Catholic laymen for the building and the repairing ot their 
Churches, and at their discretion for strictly religious uses. Mr. Arthur 
Arnold suggests that any Sect forming a majority of two-thirds in any 
parish should take all the Church revenues appropriated to that locality. 
Mr. Bright would give each Sect a million of money, and secularize 
the remainder of the capital represented by the Church revenues, 
applying it to such useful ends as education. Others propose the total 
secularization of the revenues of the Anglican and the Presbyterian 
Churches, the two endowed bodies to the level of the Homan Catholic 
Church, which is supported by voluntary contributions. It is obvious 
that each set of plans has its owm difficulties. The scheme of endow¬ 
ment of the Homan Church out of the Consolidated Fund would arouse 
two foes,—the old No Popery feeling, and the dislike of the British 
people to more taxes. Moreover, it is open to the objection that the 
priests have signified their resolution not to have it. That objection also 
applies to all the schemes of distribution, excepting Mr. Herbert Stack’s, 
which w'ould not endow the priests, but would return to the Homan 
Catholic laity their ow T n tithes, and, if advisable, would restrict the ap¬ 
plication of the funds to Church-building. Mr. Arnold’s scheme has 
one distinct characteristic,—it would leave Protestantism still as much 
established in Ulster as at present; for in few T parishes of that province 
could the Romanists command a two-thirds majority; but it is open to 
the objection that it w r ould introduce a sectarian election contest in 
every locality. The distinctive feature of Lord Bussell’s distribution 
is, that it offers to the priests a boon bigger than that suggested by any 
other plan. Its weakness may be found in its making too direct an 
offer, and treating with polite contempt the declaration of the priests 
that they wfill not accept the money. But if those w r ho would distri¬ 
bute have to overcome the difficulty arising from this refusal of the 
priests, those who would disendow have their ow'n difficulty: how are 
the funds to be applied ? To primary education, is the general answer ; 
but the answer forgets that the Roman Catholics of Ireland are be¬ 
ginning to feel as great a dislike to State schools as to State Churches, 
and that they w T ant to have their education as w T ell as their religion in 
the hands of their own priests. I have thus stated to you— (not, of 
course, for the purpose of imparting information, hat simply in order to 
show you, and other notable politicians, that the propositions of statesmen 
are now thoroughly comprehended, and analyzedl on the outside of Parlia¬ 
ment, as well as within its walls), —the problem and the rival solutions, 
merely indicating the peculiar characteristics of each, and suggesting 
“difficulties.” But then, in some people’s dictionaries “ difficulties” 
are simply obstacles to be overcome. 

On the land question the rival schemes are more numerous and even 
more divergent in principle. Mr. Fortescue’s Bill proposed, that, in 
the absence of written contracts to the contrary, or written prohibitions 
from liis Soil-Lord, a tenant should be at liberty to improve, and should 
obtain on eviction full compensation for his improvements. Lord 
Mayo’s Bill proposes that the tenant should register all changes ; and 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


78 


as regards some obvious improvements, such as removing old fences, 
building new fences, and clearing the land of stones, should have an 
absolute right to compensation; but should not obtain compensation 
lor other improvements, if the Soil-Lord had notified his refusal, with 
grounds, to the Board of Works, which would act as a kind of mediator 
between the Soil-Lord and the cultivator of the soil. Mr. Bright 
suggests that the Government should buy large estates of absentee Soil- 
Lords, and sell them in small lots, on easy terms, to the Irish farmers. 
Lord Dufferin has a scheme of the same kind, with the difference that 
the land is to be let at a fair fixed rent, but on strict conditions as to 
good farming. Mr. Mill proposes that the Soil-Lord should be com¬ 
pelled to let at a fair rent, the State giving him compensation for his 
loss. There are many other schemes, apparently but not really dis¬ 
tinct. For example, Mr. Butt’s plan, though differing in detail, is 
essentially the same as Mr. Mill’s. In fact, all Irish land measures 
are divisible into (1) those that simply propose compensation for im¬ 
provements ; (2) those which propose that the State should buy land, 
and let it at a fair and fixed rent, or sell it on easy terms to small 
holders : (8) those which, with or without compensation to the Soil- 
Lords, would compel them to let at a fair fixed rent, or sell on easy 
terms to small holders. It is not likely that Parliament will next week 
decisively pronounce on the positive form of any large measure, but in 
the tendency of the debate the Nation shall probably be able to discern 
the principles of new legislation. I have on this, as on the Irish Church 
question, simply stated the case at present. I shall have many oppor¬ 
tunities of discussing the probable advantages and disadvantages of 
the rival schemes. For the Liberal party two principles are clear, and 
are universally accepted. First, there must be complete equality of 
all Irish Churches, to be thoroughly carried out in one way or another, 
either by levelling up or by levelling down,—but at all events to be 
carried out. Secondly, the right of the tenant in the unexhausted 
improvements wrought by his own toil or capital must be as thoroughly 
legalized as the property of the Soil-Lord in the land. 

At a time when every embryo statesman is trying his ’prentice 
lian’ on the Irish question, it is a real relief, as well as a positive plea¬ 
sure, to hear the opinions of men like John Bright and John Stuart 
Mill, no matter whether the majority of the Nation agree with or differ 
from their views. That the views of these statesmen will not be very 
unreasonable, may be presumed from their well known ability, while 
their acknowledged honesty and straightforwardness will be an ample 
guarantee that their theories and principles are put forward in good 
faith. In a pamphlet published a few days since, entitled, “England 
and Ireland,” John Stuart Mill has discussed at length the causes of 
disaffection in Ireland, and the conclusion is not very battering to Eng¬ 
lish rule. Fie declares as his conviction that there is, probably, no 
other civilized Nation which, if the task of governing Ireland had hap¬ 
pened to devolve on it, would not have shown itself more capable of 
that work than England has hitherto done. He assigns his grounds 
most explicitly. First, he says:—“ There is no other civilized Nation 
which is so conceited of its own institutions, and of all its modes of 
public action, as England is; and, secondly, there is no other civilized 
nation which is so far apart from Ireland in the character of its history, 
or so unlike it in the whole constitution of its social economy; and 
none, therefore, which, if it applies to Ireland the modes of thinking 


80 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


and the maxims of government which have grown up within itself, is so 
very certain to go wrong.” Nevertheless, that is just the very way in 
which England has always ruled unfortunate Ireland. On the Land 
question, the feeling of the people of the two countries has been always 
different, mainly and probably because the circumstances under which 
they were generated were different. Nevertheless, it has been always 
sought to rule Ireland in this very matter on the system which suited 
England. Mr. Mill does not approve ot the English Land system, but 
lie knows that it is rendered tolerable by having been rooted in the tra¬ 
ditions of the English people. Economically unsound in England, it 
is far more injurious in Ireland, where, besides its radical delects, it 
has to encounter the antipathy of the people, who have always declared 
against the burthen it imposed on them. What remedy does Mr. Mill 
propose tor the present unsatisfactory state of affairs in Ireland '? He 
professes a belief that to hold Ireland permanently by the old bad 
means is, simply, an impossibility, and that the mass of the. British 
people would not permit the attempt. The time, he thinks, is come 
when the Democracy of one country will join with the Democracy ot 
another, rather than back their own ruling authorities in putting it 
down. He is no advocate for the separation of the two countries, and 
does not think that Federal union between them could last. The pro¬ 
posal which he makes is briefly as follows:—Let a Commission be ap¬ 
pointed under the authority of Parliament, similar to that appointed 
for the commutation of tithes, whose duty it shall be to examine every 
farm which is let to a tenant, and commute the present variable to a 
fixed rent. There must, he declares, be compulsory powers, and a 
strictly judicial inquiry. It must be ascertained in each case, as 
promptly as is consistent with due investigation, what annual payment 
would be an equivalent to the Soil-Lord for the rent he now receives 
(provided that rent be not excessive), and for the present value of 
whatever prospect there may be of an increase, from any other source 
than the peasant’s own exertions. This annual sum should be secured 
to the Soil-Lord, under the guarantee of the State. He should have 
the option of receiving it directly from the national treasury, by being 
inscribed as the owner of consols sufficient to yield the amount. Those 
Soil-Lords who are the least useful in Ireland, and on the worst terms 
with their tenantry, would probably accept this opportunity of severing 
altogether their connexion with tire Irish soil. Whether this was the 
case or not, every farm not worked by the proprietor would become the 
permanent holding of the existing tenant, who would pay either to the 
Soil-Lord or to the State the fixed rent which had been decided upon ; 
if the income which it was thought just that the proprietor 


or 

should receive were more than the tenant could justly be required to 
pay. The tenant should pay the full rent which was adjudged to the 
former proprietor, unless special circumstances should render it unjust 
to require so much. Should such circumstances exist, the State should 
lose the difference. The proposition has been, and will continue for 
some time, to be fiercely assailed. It is, however, both on account of 
its subject and its author, eminently deserving of calm consideration 
at the hands of both Soil-Lords and tenants. But, in order to make 
sufficient progress in beneficial legislation, with respect to these and 
other important questions, the Nation must have leaders who are both 
able and ready to lead,—and followers and supporters that shall be 
willing to follow and sustain them in their conquering marches. 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


81 


It. is undoubtedly the case, however, that the party of the majority, 
alike in the House ot the Common men and throughout the country, is 
not in proper fighting order; and although its leader is ever ready to lead, 
it is a great deal too true that some of the followers will not follow. In 
proof of that tact, we need look no farther than to the Treasury bench. 
\ ou are a Minister in power, and, great as your personal qualities may be, 
you enjoy but a limited confidence in the country, and represent in the 
Chamber a minority so contracted, that you retain your place only by 
doing what would not drive the majority to extremes ; and you retain 
your post upon the same stern condition. This could not possibly have 
occurred if the majority of three hundred and seventy who owe 
allegiance to the principles loyally asserted by Mr. Gladstone were as 
well drilled as their antagonists. There are a number of politicians 
who survive to represent the “dark ages” of Lord Palmerston. They 
are borne on the strength, of the Liberal army, but in their minds they 
are deserters from the flag; and the disloyalty which they satirize is 
chiefly exemplified by themselves. By “ leaders who don’t lead,” they 
really mean “leaders who don’t lead in the old, comfortable conve¬ 
nient fashion. ’ With them, Mr. Gladstone’s cardinal sin is, that he 
is capable of such pestilent fidelity to his duty as even to resign office 
rather than forfeit political consistency. You derive such “ help and 
comfort” from this Adullamitish band as a General does from the spies 
and cowards in the enemy’s camp—they are useful, but not decent, 
allies. Their disaffection is one principal cause why you gained your 
position ; the other cause is, that you hold in your hand the weapon of 
a dissolution. A double and diverse terror oppresses the minds of all 
these Adullamites, and of a certain number of other senators who go 
into Parliament for social and personal purposes, rather than to pass 
righteous laws. Those amateur legislators are now on their good be¬ 
havior, as regards the things they say and do before the vast new 
constituencies which the Household Suffrage Bill has originated; and 
yet, on the other hand, if they push you into a corner, they dread lest 
you should plunge them into the cost and risk of an intermediate elec¬ 
tion. So they want a leader who will make things pleasant, and who will 
join you, the Prime Minister, in helping everybody of suspected opinions 
through this critical session with a character ready whitewashed for 
the hustings. Upon men of this moral stamp no arguments but those 
of fear will have any effect; and public writers should simply point out 
to Mr. Bouverie and his like, that if they have the smallest wish to sit 
for boroughs after the dangerous date when the new regime begins, and 
the bribery judges are in banco, they had better make up their minds to 
drop the role of “ followers who don’t follow.” To honest and con¬ 
sistent Liberals, I would point out what is the strength and the weak¬ 
ness of the present singular situation. Making what allowances they 
must for the disloyal elements in their ranks, Mr. Gladstone’s side of 
the House is really in power. You reign most constitutionally without 
ruling; you are—and no man knows it better than you do—Prime 
Minister quam din bene xe gesserit —king only during good behavior. 
Indispensable to your own side, you perfectly well understand that you 
may be Premier just so long as you do the work required by the Nation, 
in the shape of measures dictated by the opinions of the day. Mr. 
Gladstone’s real junction at present is almost exactly that of the 
Roman “Tribune of the people,” who could veto any and every “ ro- 
ation.” lie, with his majority behind him, sits as the e.r officio judge 




82 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


of tlie conduct of the Government to say whether it is doing its duty, 
and, the moment it defaults, to force it up to the mark of its “ truly 
Liberal policy.” Now, the Nation not only has it on record, but can 
see from the nature of the circumstances, that this position of affairs 
may furnish most excellent results. The influence of the present com¬ 
plication on the cherished doctrine of ministerial responsibility may be 
open to question ; but the enactment of Household Suffrage has already 
shown that the immediate fruits, in the shape of measures framed and 
passed, may be satisfactory to all who regard Parliament as a chamber 
designed for the passing of good laws, and not for the tickling of indi¬ 
vidual vanities, or, to quote an American sage, for “ the filling of pri¬ 
vate dripping-pans with public grease.” There is no saying, indeed, 
what may not be accomplished by the legatees of the Tory Earl of the 
Turf, under a “ truly Liberal policy,” if the Liberal party only dis¬ 
charge faithfully its present duty as an army of observation, watching 
and preparing the political ground for its grand resumption of active 
work, with the Nation for a constituency. But, to be ready for the 
hour of advance, and for the performance of existing duties, it is abso¬ 
lutely necessary that the party should profit by the lesson of Mr. Bou- 
verie’s bitter veracities. Let no man w T ait till Mr. Gladstone is tired 
of being honest and earnest: that hour will not arrive ; and the coun¬ 
try, wherever its representatives may be, is close behind him. The 
Liberals must have better drill; they must have sharper discipline ; or 
the drumming-out just abolished in the service will be largely re-intro¬ 
duced into public life at the next elections. Mr. Gladstone is the 
leader of the Liberal party—first, by the unanimous choice of the 
country, which also chooses its followers ; next, by his consummate 
political and personal gifts ; and, lastly, by the cordial adhesion of all 
that large section of the Opposition which will survive Household Suf¬ 
frage to see the new House assemble. The task before us may be 
divided into tw r o grand stages. In the first, w*e have, steadfastly and 
rigidly, to watch the operations of the Government; in the second, w r e 
shall have to resume the operations for ourselves; but, with a view to 
the ultimate results, the earlier stage is not less important than the later. 
The Ministry is pledged to continue the series of ‘ ‘ truly Liberal measures,' ’ 
and the Liberals have to see that the measures answer to the pledge, 
making them do so if they fail. The better they are rendered now, the 
larger will be the infusion of new T life into the constituencies, and the 
greater, therefore, the access of strength to our own ranks after the 
completion of the process. But, for the due execution of their duty in 
that preliminary state, they must have the most unbroken vigilance, the 
sharpest sight, the most united action. And the self-same discipline 
that will enable them to make the amplest use of the preparatory period, 
will afford the most wholesome regimen to drill them for a steady and 
energetic advance the very moment that the hour for action strikes. It 
is, therefore, absolutely necessary for honest men, on principle, and for 
the less earnest, from prudential motives, that there should be an end 
to the mutinous folly of the past year. AVe must close up our files, 
stand shoulder to shoulder, obey our leader, wfith “eyes right,” and 
less talking in the ranks; so that w r c may be ready for organized 
action, and for oar exposition of a “truly Liberal policy.” It is to 
Mr. Gladstone’s high qualities as a leader that w T e owe the tenure of 
our ground at all: he stands, where he ought to stand—in the forward 
place which he took up in resigning office to ensure Reform. All those 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


83 


who wish the Nation to count them as true Liberals must forthwith 
advance to his side, and stand ready to fight there, not less honestly 
than lie himself means to fight. The Liberal cause wants those who 
“won’t run away;” not the noisy gentlemen, who are so great in 
speech and so very small in energetic action. 

There are men whose lives and actions realize and display a series 
of beautiful ideas, and not only adequately fulfill a noble mission, but 
aftord an instructive illustration of beneficial principles. Britain, hap¬ 
pily for herself, has never been wanting in such characters. Even in 
the darkest hour of Ireland’s history some streak of patriotic light has 
dawrned upon her, and the voice of her wailing has not always been 
tuned to the tones of despair. Her faith in Justice, and her courage 
to denounce oppression, have been sustained by the patriotic promoters 
of her cause, and it is consoling to think that time does not exhaust 
the list of adherents who are dutiful in all things, and as ready for 
sacrifice as service; who have repeatedly offered with unreserve the 
highest tribute which honesty can pay to patriotism, and gave the 
strongest proof of the sincerity which constitutes the real test of this 
rare political virtue. It is no exaggeration of merit, or flattery of 
■worth, to say that Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Bright, Mr. Mill, hold amongst 
disinterested British politicians the first place. Their labors, their 
trials, their consistency, their honor,—the virtues which ennoble the 
citizen and rarely distinguish the politician,—combine to give them a 
pre-eminence sacred from a universality as well as from a homeliness, 
which combine to render it doubly valuable and important. Even 
those who differ from them in opinion, and who regard their opinions 
as dangerous to society, must admire the candor which is above the 
artifice of misrepresentation, and the courage which scorns to stoop to 
the subterfuge of concealment. I am sometimes, indeed, surprised 
that a man of Mr. Bright’s earnestness and simplicity of character is 
not discouraged at the indifference and the positive hostility displayed 
on the subject which he holds to be so very important to Ireland’s 
welfare. At the same time, his example cannot fail to have a beneficial 
effect; and he himself must imbibe a salutary lesson, as well as impart 
a salutary influence. Mr. Bright’s leading idea is to keep dinning 
into the ears of the British people the pressing wants and grievances of 
Ireland. This is precisely one of the things which is required. Ireland 
is misgoverned at the present day,—because she is misunderstood. 
The British people are not, however, wedded to injustice, nor are they 
disposed to patronize it. If the British mind could be rightly and per¬ 
sistently appealed to by the friends and patriots of Ireland,—if the 
irresistible logic of facts could be properly employed,—the people of 
Ireland could hopefully look forward to a full measure of long-delayed 
and much needed Justice. We want in Parliament more men who will 
devote themselves to this special task of enlightenment and compunc¬ 
tion. There are a few Irish members who have done good service in 
this particular line of duty, but their ranks require to be daily strength¬ 
ened. The Irish people should not be indifferent to the grave crisis 
that is at hand. It is their fortune and their future that is at stake ; 
and although failure has discouraged them, and disappointment has 
almost crushed hope in their brains, they should rouse themselves to 
the duties of the hour, and boldly accept the challenge flung to them 
on the one side, and embrace the tender of help offered them on the 
other. The No-Popery and Orange party are leaving nothing undone 

F 


84 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


to preserve ascendency and perpetuate tlie reign of intolerance and 
bigotry. Their meetings are designed to arouse the worst passions of 
the mob, and to kindle, if necessary, the flames of civil war. It is un¬ 
manly and ignominious to endure such attacks in silence, or to bear 
the'insults which they convey. It is time that the voice of the majo¬ 
rity of the people of Ireland should be heard, and that four millions 
and a-lialf of the population should drown by their unanimous expres¬ 
sion of opinion the clamor of the little gatherings that presume to 
represent Protestant opinion and feeling in the country. It is impos¬ 
sible to calculate the benefits that will flow from the annihilation of 
the Church Establishment. The removal of this monster grievance 
will be the first step towards the pacification and prosperity of the 
country. It will break down the barriers which at present divide Sect 
from Sect. It will enable men to meet on a common platform, and 
consult for their common interests. It will substitute peace for strife, 
and brotherly love for social discord; and it will bring into vigorous 
life those great principles of freedom and equality which are the bul¬ 
warks of human happiness. The Irish people ought instinctively to 
know and appreciate these truths, and they should rouse themselves 
from their lethargy, unite with the people of England and Scotland, 
and strike a blow for their own rights. The contest concerns Ireland, 
and Ireland alone, and if Ireland be indifferent to its results,—Who 
can blame England and Scotland if they, too, should prove apathetic 
in the end, and leave to those who ought to work the reward which 
their exertions deserve ? 

Lord Malmesbury, in the gilded House of the Lords, of gentle blood 
and pure flesh, was somewhat more communicative than you,—his ple¬ 
beian chief,—as he announced on last Thursday evening that a Bill on 
popular education will be soon, if possible, introduced. The most in¬ 
teresting element, however, of his speech consisted in the practical 
proof that Lord Malmesbury himself has been selected as the Minis¬ 
terial leader in the House of the Lords,—in the Upper Chamber of the 
Hereditary and Born-legislators of Britain. For the laudable purpose 
of removing what he conceived to be an unjust prejudice against his 
fitness for the post of leading the Lords, he attempted to explain that 
he had not committed a mistake which was lately imputed to him by 
the active word-takers , the newspaper reporters. It seems now, ac¬ 
cording to Lord Malmesbury’s own emendations, that he told the 
House of the rich blue-blooded Nobles and Pious Prelates that your Ad¬ 
ministration would be formed, not “ if possible,” but “ as soon as pos¬ 
sible.” The correction,—the result of a measure of reflection, or the 
effect of a suggestion from the lately breath-blown noble, the Tory 
idea-maker,—to a certain extent, diminishes the want of confidence 
which may be felt in Lord Malmesbury’s tact and accuracy of language. 
When the representative of your Government had, as he thought, tri¬ 
umphantly defended himself against the ugly charge of verbal awkward¬ 
ness, Lord Bussell proceeded to commit, what was considered by 
far-seeing politicians to be, a much graver blunder than the confusion 
of phrase which had been attributed to Lord Malmesbury. It was at 
least somewhat premature to declare that he,—(the once No-Popery 
Whigling),—had no confidence in a Government which has not yet 
disclosed its intentions : and it was gratuitously discourteous to take 
the opportunity of denouncing the deception, which is Lord Bussell’s 
equivalent for your improved process of Tory Education. Lord Derby’s 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


85 


Government had many faults, but it never, I think, “ openly avowed 
that it does not mean what it says, hut says one thing and means an¬ 
other.” The inconsistency of the Tory party in dealing with Parlia¬ 
mentary Reform has been discussed often enough; and there was no 
special public cause why Lord Russell should put himself into a raging 
passion on the occasion of your accession to the office of Prime Minis¬ 
ter.. The contrast which formed the climax of his unseasonable and 
envious invective was characteristic of his small-boy egotism, and 
extremely amusing. “It is a course of conduct, I must say ,”—uttered 
the once famous No-Popery Lord,—“which not only men like Mr. Fox, 
Earl Grey, or Lord Althorp would have spurned, but which men like 
Mr. Pitt, Lord Liverpool, the Duke of Wellington, and Sir Robert 
Peel would likewise have disdained to adopt.” The Tories of the 
present are not only far inferior to the Whig demigods, but they are 
unworthy even to be ranked with the heroes of their own erroneous 
credence. No one would find fault with, or blame Lord Russell for 
attacking the measures of even the Government, of which you are the 
presiding genius, if he thinks them inexpedient or unjust, or even for 
seeking on suitable opportunities the restoration of his own party to 
power; but he ought to be well aware that it would be at present ex¬ 
tremely difficult to form a Liberal Ministry, and you have taken good 
care that he has no official knowledge of your intended policy. In his 
recent pamphlet, Lord Russell himself lately professed his desire to 
support the Government in passing any Irish measure which corres¬ 
ponded with his own opinions of expediency and Justice. The burst of 
small-minded irritation which occurred on Thursday evening was pro¬ 
bably merely incidental,—or consequent upon an overflow of aristo¬ 
cratic blue-blood to the region of the Brain containing the Organs of 
Self-Esteem and Love of Approbation. Yes ! on Thursday evening, 
the 5th of March, 1868, Earl Russell delivered himself of a spiteful 
speech, small in every sense of the word, and characterized by more 
than his usual littleness and sourness: to call it bitter would be to 
dignify it. But Earl Russell did a very unwise and petulant thing 
when he recurred to your Edinburgh speech at all. Mr. Gladstone, 
however, in the House of the Common men, was judiciously silent; and 
Mr. Bouverie commented on your cunningly contrived speech, in the 
character of an unattached and semi-malcontent Liberal. It was pro¬ 
bably very unnecessary to remind you,—now the Plebeian Prime 
Minister of Great Britain, in spite of Whig and Tory ascendency,— 
that you were not supported by a majority of the members of the 
House of the Common men, especially as Mr. Bouverie admitted that 
the anomalous position of the Government was explained by the disor¬ 
ganized state of the Opposition. “We have leaders that won’t lead, 
and followers that won’t follow. Instead of an organized party, we are 
little better than a rabble.” The leaders that won’t lead may be inter¬ 
preted to mean Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Mill ; and Mr. 
Bouverie himself, I think, is not an unfair specimen of the followers 
that won’t follow. A rabble, even if it constitutes a majority, is not 
prepared to succeed to power; and if Mr. Bouverie’s description is ac¬ 
curate, as it is certainly founded on fact, it is useless to lament, for 
the present, the inconvenience of a Government supported only by a 
minority. It is very true that insecurity in the tenure of office ac¬ 
counts for administrative weakness, and Mr. Bouverie was justified in 
attributing the pusillanimity of the Government in dealing with Mr. 


86 THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 

Beales and his supporters, to the entire Cabinet, rather than to the 
unfortunate Home Secretary. The second illustration of the weakness 
of Lord Derby’s Ministry was derived from the commutation of the 
capital sentences of the Fenian convicts, in the Spring of 1867. On 
that occasion, the final decision of the Government represented the 
General Wish of the Community, and there is no cause to suppose or 
conclude that bad effects or injurious consequences have followed from 
the extension of mercy to the ringleaders of an abortive insurrection. 
The graver crime afterwards perpetrated at Manchester was duly pu¬ 
nished,—according to the Barbaric Practice of Public Murder ,—not¬ 
withstanding the logical remonstrances of enlightened philanthropists, 
and the maddened menaces of disaffected, because oppressed, Irishmen. 
But the Public Murders at Manchester did not prevent other outrages: 
they only rendered their own horrid character more familiar. The 
moral of Mr. Bouverie’s speech was contained in the suggestion that 
there is, after all, no difference among moderate politicians, and that 
you,—as the new Prime Minister,—ought to have included in your 
Government members taken from the Liberal side of the House of the 
Common men. As Mr.BouvERiE had already referred to Lord Derby’s 
failure in a similar experiment, he very probably scarcely intended that 
his words should be literally construed. Those representatives of the 
old Whig and Tory traditions who survive the next election, will soon 
find that they are no longer one another’s opponents. The political 
descendants of Mr. Fox, Earl Grey, and Lord Althorp, will be forced 
to waive their natural superiority to the less virtuous caste which 
traces its descent to Mr. Pitt, the Duke of Wellington, and Sir Robert 
Peel. For the present, amalgamation is premature, and the best ser¬ 
vice which you can perform to the entire Nation is to proceed in your 
work of Education. If you can persuade your party to accept the 
Liberal policy against which you have assuredly no prejudice of your 
own, it is possible that you may receive support from the followers who 
won’t follow Mr. Gladstone. There is no desirable measure against 
which the Tories are pledged, as they were pledged and disposed to 
resist Parliamentary Reform; yet it is necessary to proceed with tact 
and caution, as many of the party are sore under the consciousness of 
inconsistency, and of extreme docility to your daring instructions. On 
the whole, the probabilities are in favor of your continuance in office 
during the present Session. In the course of next week your Irish 
policy will be announced; and it is not improbable that Mr. Gladstone 
will proceed to introduce Resolutions which will be ultimately equiva¬ 
lent to a vote of want of confidence in the Government. But it will be 
very difficult to unite a majority, either in a party demonstration, or 
in the affirmance of any special Irish policy not embodied in a Bill. 
There is, for the moment, I believe, no general anxiety that there 
should be a change of Government, and you are stronger, as your chief 
opponent is weaker, in the House of the Common men, than throughout 
the Nation. Impetuosity, irritability, and the habit of intellectual 
exaggeration, are not even observed by the great body of those who 
endure Mr. Gladstone’s earnestness and eloquence; and, on the other 
hand, the gifts which have raised you to your high position can only 
be fully appreciated by personal observation. As it is impossible that 
Mr. Gladstone, even if lie succeeded in ejecting you from office, should 
carry any comprehensive measure during the present Session, it is not 
desirable that time should be wasted in a change of Government. 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


87 


Mr. Bouverie’s burst of grief, on Thursday evening last, was not 
really a solo: there was a chorus behind the scenes. No one can have 
mingled much amongst Liberals of late without listening to woeful 
lamentations. Last year the British people were called upon to cry 
over the beautiful corpse of that dear deceased, the darling “British 
Constitution,” traitorously slain by your unscrupulous conduct; but, 
this year, the wail of woe is raised for that once respectable army, the 
great Liberal party. Gentlemen go about in London, or to and fro 
between the clubs, shaking their heads, and muttering their woe at the 
disorganized condition of the Liberal party: according to Mr. Bouverie, 
“ its leaders won’t lead, its followers won’t follow:” all is going wrong, 
and nobody knows what to do or say. Now, last year, I refused to 
share the sorrow of the poor old Whigs, definitely dished by Lord 
Derby, with your deeply designed assistance. I saw no subject for 
regret in the not very great change wrought by your Bill,—that revo¬ 
lution, tempered by the payment of rates ; and, this year, I am equally 
contemptuous of the political Banshees , who, in evening dress of the 
period, vex the drowsy ear of night with their grief. The Liberal party 
is disorganized ;—But why ? Simply on account of its singular suc¬ 
cess. Wliat was the situation in 1866 ? The Liberals were like an 
army, which, while trying to capture a town, was watched and ha¬ 
rassed hy a force, that strove, as earnestly as it could, to make them 
raise the siege. Finally, it compelled the Liberals to retire; and, while 
they were recovering their strength for a new attack, lo! it assailed the 
town for them, and dismantled the fortifications. The Liberals walked 
in, rather bewildered at a success attained without a fight. This is the 
true secret of the present disorganization of the Liberal party. The 
Liberals were not the immediate victors of the day, though it was the 
fear of their future operations that compelled the Tories’ change of tac¬ 
tics ; and, missing the rapture of the combat and the glory of conquest, 
they were rather bewildered as they passed through the wide breach, 
and somewhat languid as they missed the stern joy that warriors feel 
in foemen worthy of their steel. They have now no foemen that they 
are sure will stand up against them. It may greatly concern some 
Whig lawyers that you—not Mr. Gladstone— are the dispenser of pa¬ 
tronage ; hut, until I see a clear prospect that a change of Ministry will 
promote good measures, and stop bad Bills, I cannot feel, any serious 
impatience about the mere occupation of office. The ancient obstruc¬ 
tive Toryism that singly resisted, for the sake of resistance, is dead; it 
died with that fine old intellectual country gentleman, General Peel, — 
peace to his political manes !—and, instead, the Nation has that policy 
which you speak of as “ Conservative,” when you are in Downing 
Street,'and as “ Truly Liberal,” when you have to face the Opposition. 
But, does this feeling of content with their present position indicate 
that the Liberals shall be always satisfied with remaining on the Oppo¬ 
sition benches? By no means. The Liberals must bear in mind, 
however, that the Tory party is very different from theirs. .The Toiy 
party is like those lower kind of organisms, that can exist without any 
particular head, tail, or important members. Dickens desciibes a 
maker of artificial arms, legs, hands,—I believe, even trunks,—who 
told wondrous tales of mutilated gentlemen refittedIn fact, Sir,” 
he added, “ we want little beyond the vital principle.” But you know 
well that your great Tory pupils do not even want that. Give them 
anything,—a “ cry,” half an idea, a well-established prejudice, a cramp 


88 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


crotchet,—and they adhere as one man to it, and stick together in 
every road,—straight or crooked, muddy or clean. Now, the Liberals 
cannot do that. They are nothing, if not bound together by some 
grand principle of public importance. 

You have, according to the received Newspaper language of the day, 
inaugurated your advent to the highest office in the realm by a cha¬ 
racteristic, and in that sense becoming, innovation. A gentleman of 
the Press, and a veteran writer of leading articles and novels, may be 
pardoned for making the Newspapers his channels of communicating 
his latest fictions and epigrams to the outer world. As even the Queen 
explains herself in the Times to her subjects, sycophants, and worship¬ 
ers when she is misunderstood, you, her ingenious Prime Minister, 
may very properly make use of a precedent so august,—so supremely 
royal. Literary men, at any rate, ought not to be hasty to find fault 
with this remarkable testimony to the power of the Fourth Estate. The 
loss of dignity, or the violation of conventionalism which your letter 
may at first sight be thought to involve, is well purchased by the value 
of the precedent established. Henceforth Parliamentary debates may 
probably lose one of their most popular and exciting ingredients: a 
sharp personal explanation,—that mental salt which has kept the 
House of the Common men from stagnating on the lees of mere stupid 
business,—will soon, probably, be a thing of the past. The public, and 
the circulation of the daily papers, will reap the benefit; and a smart 
exchange of repartee and epigram and fusillade of vituperation, in the 
shape of letters to the Times, and other daily papers, between the Prime 
Minister and an aged leader of the Opposition, will be more popular 
than speeches, and may certainly be made twice as pungent. At present 
the thing is in its infancy, and the public cannot demand from the first 
tentative and imperfect hint of a great principle that completeness 
which, no doubt, will one day develop its full capacities, when moulded 
by practice into perfection. Your letter must be judged with that cha¬ 
rity which is extended to innovations and first attempts. As it stands, 
it can scarcely be accounted a success,—though, in a way, it displays 
the great capabilities of the new method of politics. To investigate it, 
I must be content to be a little tedious. Then, on Thursday evening, 
the 5th of March, 1868, Earl Piussell,— as I have already observed, — 
delivered himself, in the House of the Lords, of a very spiteful and 
snarling speech,—small and snappish in every sense of these terms. 
His exasperated Lordship said:—“In a speech delivered at Edinburgh, 
Mr. Disraeli boasted, that, during seven years, he had been educating 
his party, with a view to bring about a much greater reduction of the 
Franchise, and what he would at one time have called “ a greater de¬ 
gradation of the Franchise than any which his opponents had pro¬ 
posed.” Whereupon, the very next morning, you, writing from 
Downing Street,—-just as Lord Macaulay once wrote from Windsor 
Castle,—compose a circular to all the London papers, in which you say, 
that,—“ Nothing of the kind was said, by you at Edinburgh .” Nothing of the 
kind,he it observed; nothing equivalent to this, nothing like it, nothing 
of the sort. This is what you affirm you said at Edinburgh, and you 
affirm, also, it is true,—namely, “ that the Tory party, after the failure 
of their Bill of 1859, had been educated for seven years on the subject 
of Parliamentary Befonn, and, during that interval, had arrived at five 
conclusions, which, with their authority, you had at various times an¬ 
nounced,—viz.: 1. That the measure should be complete. 2. That 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


89 


the representation of no place should he entirely abrogated. 8. That 
there must he a real Boundary Commission. 4. That the County re¬ 
presentation should he considerably increased. 5. That the Borough 
Franchise should he established on the principle of rating.” Now, it 
may be asked,—Is it possible to ascertain accurately what you did 
really say at Edinburgh? The following are the exact words of that 
portion of the speech delivered by you at Edinburgh, which forms the 
subject in dispute between Earl Bussell and yourself. The extract is 
taken from the authorized, and I can have no doubt subsequently re¬ 
vised, edition of the speech in question, published in pamphlet form by 
William Blackwood & Sons :— 

“ In 1859, you know what occurred. We were expelled from power by a resolu¬ 
tion of Lord John Russell, that no settlement of the question of Parliamentary 
Reform would be satisfactory which did not involve the lowering of the Borough 
Franchise. We resisted that. We believed that it was a policy which ought not to 
be sanctioned by the House of Commons, unless it was definitely brought forward, 
and feeling confident that there was no mere degradation of the Borough Franchise 
that could bring any satisfactory settlement, we recommended her Majesty to dis¬ 
solve Parliament upon that issue. We appealed to the country. The country did 
not give us a majority; and, therefore, both Parliament and the country were hence¬ 
forth pledged to a lowering of the Franchise in Boroughs. Well, now, what happened 
in the memorable seven years which elapsed from 1859 to 1866, when Lord Derby 
was again called to power, and when he did me the honor again to ask me to attempt 
to lead the House of Commons? Now, observe, my lords and gentlemen, that from 
the year 1860, when Lord Palmerston, in consequence of the pledge into which he 
had been entrapped by the conduct of Lord John Russell— because Lord Palmers¬ 
ton, in consequence of his engagement to Lord Derby, was entirely opposed to the 
motion of Lord John Russell, and it was with great difficulty that, in 1859, he 
agreed to support it—see, I say, what has occurred in Parliament, on the subject of 
Reform, in these seven years. They commenced with the measure of Lord Pal¬ 
merston, in 1863. That failed. They concluded with the measure of Lord John 
Russell, in 1866, which also failed; and, in the interval, there were all these sepa¬ 
rate motions of Mr. Locke King, and of Mr. Baines, of which we have heard. There¬ 
fore, during these years—from 1860 to 1866—the question of Parliamentary Reform 
was’constantly before the public mind and the examination of Parliament. During 
that period of seven years, with the advice—I may say under the instruction of my 
colleagues in public life, after constant communication with them—during these 
seven years, I endeavored continuously to lay down the principles upon which, in 
our opinion, a measure of Parliamentary Reform ought to be founded. Now, mark 
this—because these are things which you may not have heard of in another speech 
which was made in this city of Edinburgh. We had to prepare the mind of the 
country—to educate, if it be not arrogant to use such a phrase—to educate our party 
on this subject of Reform. It is a large party, and its attention can only be obtained 
to the consideration of a great question by the pressure which is secured by frequent 
discussion. Now, what were the points which, not only with the concurrence of 
Lord Derby and my colleagues,—some of whom are in this room,—what were the 
points that, during the course of these seven years, I tried to impress upon the con¬ 
science and conviction of the country? They were these. First of all, and by far 
the most important,—that a measure of Parliamentary Reform, whenever it was 
adopted should be a complete and comprehensive one ; that all the branches of the 
subject should be dealt with ; that we would not be seduced, as was the habit of the 
Radical party after the failure of Lord Palmerston’s comprehensive measure in 1860, . 
into dealing with the question in detail. And for this simple reason,—that, if you 
deal with it in detail, you may indeed establish a Democratic Constitution. Take 
Mr Baines’s question of the reduction of the Borough Franchise, which we have 
been accused of inconsistency in having opposed. Had Mr. Baines carried a very 
We reduction in the Borough Franchise, without any reference to other portions of 
the subject what would have happened? You would have had the next week, with¬ 
out anv effective opposition,—for it was a part of the subject on which the opinion 
of the House of Commons was matured,—a great reduction in the County Franchise. 
Well when vou had got these two things, they would have rested, and in due time 
ther*’ would have been a dissolution of Parliament. And the county members would 
have been returned by the borough population that dwelt without the Parliamentary 


90 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


boundaries of the Act of 1882. Well, that was the first great point which it was my 
duty always to impress upon Parliament,—that we could listen to no measure that 
was not complete. We contended that all the portions of Parliamentary Reform 
should be treated together, because we knew, that, in treating them all together, de¬ 
pended that political equilibrium which has hitherto prevailed in this country. That 
was the first condition. What was the second ? During these seven years I had to 
vindicate the principles upon which disfranchisement and enfranchisement should 
take place. I said for the party with which I acted,—We cannot sanction any pro¬ 
posal for grouping boroughs ; we contend that the representation of no place shall 
be entirely abrogated, and that, if you want to increase representation, you must 
look to a certain class of boroughs, and appeal to their patriotism—which appeal 
will, no doubt, be successful if recommended by a Ministry—to spare you one of their 
members. These were the principles upon which, for seven years, we insisted that 
disfranchisement and enfranchisement should take place. What was the third con¬ 
dition ? I said,—No settlement of this question of Parliamentary Reform can be 
satisfactory unless you have a real and bona fide Boundary Commission—not a Boun¬ 
dary Commission that merely settles the boundaries of new boroughs, but that exa¬ 
mines the boundaries of all existing Parliamentary Boroughs, and takes care that 
people who are bond fide borough occupiers shall not, under your sweeping measures 
of Reform, become suddenly county electors, and so change the whole character of 
the constituencies. What was the fourth point during these seven weary, but not 
unprofitable, years, I trust, that we insisted on, on the part of our friends? The 
fourth point was this,—That justice should at last be done to the majority of the 
English nation who live in counties; and that was to be done, not merely by giving 
representation to the towns that had sprung into importance since Lord Grey’s Act 
in 1882—not merely by the issue of a Boundary Commission of the effective charac¬ 
ter I have sketched, but by adding a considerable number directly to their represen¬ 
tatives. Now, what was the fifth point that we insisted upon, and which we sup¬ 
ported by our vote; and through which vote, though at the time we had no 
anticipation of it, we became the responsible Ministers of the Crown? We insisted 
that the Borough Franchise should be established upon the principle of rating. Now, 
these are the five points that, during seven weary and toilsome years, I have, with 
the entire concurrence of those who share your entire confidence, endeavored in the 
House of Commons to impress upon the conscience and the conviction of Parliament. 
Now, my lords and gentlemen, what happened? There was a change of Govern¬ 
ment. Lord Derby came into power. Lord Derby had to consider the state of tho 
country, and he resolved that, in his opinion, it was necessary to bring in a Reform 
Bill. We brought in a Reform Bill; we passed a Reform Bill; and now we ask 
you to consider,—Were the five points that, during these seven years, on the part of 
Lord Derby, I impressed upon Parliament and the country — were they obtained or 
not? Our Reform Bill was a complete and comprehensive measure. We did vindi¬ 
cate the principles upon which enfranchisement and disfranchisement should take 
place; we did not abolish entirely the representation of any borough ; we did suc¬ 
cessfully appeal to a certain class of boroughs to spare their surplusage of represen¬ 
tation to supply the wants of the Constitution. We did do justice to the counties, 
by adding greatly to their direct representation, and enfranchising the towns that 
had grown into importance since 1832. We did issue a Boundary Commission, that 
has been, and is now, examining the Parliamentary boundaries in every part of tho 
kingdom. And, fifth and lastly, we did establish a suffrage for the boroughs, founded 
on the principle of rating ; and then I am told, when measures recommended to the 
country, during seven years, have been so triumphantly carried into effect, that we 
have done nothing, that it is our opponents who have suggested the Bill.” 

In the Times of October 30tli, 1867, you are reported, by telegraph, 
to have said:— “During that 'period of seven years, 1 had. to prepare the 
fnind of the country, and to educate,—if it be not arrogant to use such a 
phrase,—to educate our party. It is a large party, and requires its atten¬ 
tion to be called to questions of this kind with some pressure." Arrogant or 
not, the boast was true, and everybody felt it to be true. In the report 
of your speech, published by authority, and subject to your own care¬ 
ful revision, the above passage, which I have put into Italics, stands 
thus:—‘‘During that period of seven years, we had to prepare the 
mind of the country, to educate,—if it be not arrogant to use such a 
phrase,—to educate our party. It is a large party, and its attention 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


91 


can only be obtained to the consideration of a great question by the 
pressure which is secured by frequent discussion.” The difference is 
very considerable, and can be very readily accounted for. Everybody 
who has ever spoken in public, knows what it is to see one’s glowing 
rhetoric mercilessly displayed in the pitiless accuracy of stenography. 
The morning’s penitence of the unfortunate diseased drunkard is not 
more severe and self-upbraiding than the resipiscence of the sobered 
rhetorician. When confronted by yourself, you may well have been 
astounded by your own audacity. You did what, probably, every one 
would have done. You went through the unpleasant duty which is 
known to that editorial and astute craft, of which I am proud to salute 
you,—the British Premier, —as a great ornament, as “ toning down." 
In your proof, you substituted “ we ” for “I;” and the disparaging 
estimate of the “large party,” conveyed in the general expression that 
it required to be roused to questions of this kind by some “pressure," was 
watered down in the cool seclusion of your study to the phrase, “by the 
pressure which, is secured by frequent discussion." The whole point, the 
whole gist, the whole sense and meaning of the argument, was lost by 
these crafty emendations; but the implied affront to the stupid party 
was got rid of. On the very face of it, the emendation was an after¬ 
thought ; and internal evidence shows that you really did say at Edin¬ 
burgh what you were reported to have said, and that you afterwards 
repented of what you had said, and tried to scramble out of a hobble 
by the publication of an authorized, but botched and cobbled report. 
Education is a process familiar enough; education can only be con¬ 
ducted by some pressure. We, or I, had to educate our party; conse¬ 
quently, we had to “employ some pressure." This is all consequential, 
logical, and consistent. But educating a party by the pressure which 
is secured by frequent discussion, is sheer nonsense. To educate, im¬ 
plies an educator; I, or we, may be educators; but an educator who 
is “ ct pressure secured by frequent discussion , is a blank, staring absur¬ 
dity. What remains, then, is this, as the real account of the matter:— 
You actually spoke the Truth, though it involved arrogant, and almost 
contumelious language, when at Edinburgh you superbly claimed the 
glory of having educated your party, and put pressure upon them. 
You were afterwards alarmed at your own audacious truthfulness, and 
elected to be thought to have talked nonsense, when you came to print, 
not what you said, but what, upon reflection, you had come to think it 
would have been much wiser if you had said. At Edinburgh, and after 
dinner, I make no doubt of it, you said, “I had to educate our party " 
Revising your proof-sheets, you thought it more prudent and modest to 
say, “ We had to educate our party" In your Cabinet in Downing 
Street, after more than four months’ deliberation, the phrase exhales 
into “ The Tory party had been educated for seven years" First, it was, 
“ I educated the party"; then it was, “ We educated the party"; and, 
finally, “ The party had been educated." This is a pretty grammatical 
illustration of the development of the indefinite; the good, stout first 
person singular melting into the plural, and at last e\apoiating into 
the impersonal and indefinite. “I educated the paity, lie educated 
the party,"—“ The party was educated." It is a pity that the poverty of 
the English Language did not supply you,—our accomplished and lite- 
rarv Premier,— with the dual number and the middle voice, that the 
two other stages of the process of Tory education might have been in¬ 
dicated We two ; that is, I and my Lord Derby, educated the party; 


I 


92 THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 

and the Tory party educated themselves. In a former letter, in. my 
sincere congratulations to you, on your elevation to the Premiership, I 
suggested, though very gently, my misgivings as to one part of your 
character; and though I admitted that you had hitherto mastered your 
cleverness, I almost hinted that your cleverness might possibly, on 
some occasion, master you. My first forebodings have been fulfilled 
much sooner than I expected. Unless you are very much on your 
guard against this fatal gift of sharpness, you will find that your astute¬ 
ness has been already too much for you. Verbal artifice and literary 
sophistry have their uses, and you have often wielded these dangerous 
weapons with skill and success; but you should know that a Prime 
Minister, and a professor of word-fence, require different qualities. My 
fears about you resolve themselves into an apprehension that you are 
relapsing into your old manner, just when it is most necessary for you 
to forget all about it. Earl Bussell did a very silly and snarling 
thing, when he recurred to your Edinburgh speech at all. To twit 
you,—our great literary Premier ,—with an expression which was not 
only very pardonable, but very true, was really only to play second to 
Punch. For months and months all of us had been, in our several 
ways, laughing at, or with you educating your party; and at last Mr. 
Tenniel drew you as the new Plead Master receiving the honorary 
birch. This was all good fun, intelligible to the meanest comprehen¬ 
sion, and to everybody of ordinary good-nature,—and, therefore, not 
to Earl Bussell. So he made a mountain of a mole-hill, and was so 
carried away with rage and discomfiture as to swear and curse snap¬ 
pishly at what everybody else only chuckled at. Had you thoroughly 
known, I do not say yourself, but the dignity which you had won, you 
would either have treated the matter with contempt, or, in your proper 
place in Parliament, would have vindicated yourself. As it is, the old 
principle is too strong for you; the flesh of “ Sidonia” and “Coningsby” 
could not resist the temptation,—noble talk,—about “ an august assem¬ 
bly.” Hence this very small, but very significant and characteristic 
fiasco. The young man’s cat-wife, in the fable, would have done well 
on her marriage night to have forgotten her old love for mice ; and for 
at least your first week in Downing Street, you,—the Queen’s own 
Prime Minister, —might have done better had you not fallen back on 
the smallest tricks of a gentleman of the Press. 

Your recent vindicatory letter to the London journals, which I 
intend to introduce into this epistle, has not escaped criticism abroad 
as well as at home. It has elicited the following observations from 
the Opinion Nationals :—“We do not clearly understand Mr. Disraeli’s 
point. Does he mean to deny that the ‘education’ of his party was 
accomplished by himself ? Does he mean to say it was effected by the 
force of events ? But, in that case, what becomes of the reputation he 
has hitherto enjoyed, of having been the only man astute enough to 
restore his party to power ? There is another consideration which his 
letter leaves intact. The Tory party, up to the last moment, set its 
face against Beform, and represented it as useless and dangerous. We 
are, therefore, driven to regard the conduct of the Tories of 1867 as the 
result of a sudden illumination, rather than of a gradual education. 
Mr. Disraeli would certainly have been wiser had he held his tongue.” 

Most people have heard of the appropriate joke which Punch once 
applied to Lord John Bussell and his colleagues, when they were not 
supposed to be very energetic. There were two schoolboys and their 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


98 


master. “ What are you doing, John ?”—asked the pedagogue. “ No¬ 
thing, Sir,” replied John. “ And you, Sir?”—continued the master to 
the other boy. “Helping John, Sir.” “ What is your policy ?”—asks 
the British public of you, our new Prime Minister. “Do you think 
that Ireland ought to he governed in accordance with the wishes of the 
large majority of the Irish people, and that arrangements alien to the 
bulk of the natives of the soil should be set aside ?” The House of the 
Common men was crowded on the evening of the 5th current, as I have 
already observed, to hear your response. “It is not at all necessary 
to answer the question,” was your virtual reply, as our new First Lord 
of the Treasury. “ My policy is well known : my policy is the same 
as Lord Derby’s,” are your replies. “ But what was Lord Derby’s 
policy?”—ask members of Parliament, and the public out of doors, 
still more bewildered than before. It is considered very doubtful whe¬ 
ther Lord Derby ever had a policy. Household Suffrage has, indeed, 
become a great fact. At Edinburgh, you assured the Scotch Tories 
that you had been steadily educating the party for this Franchise during 
the last six or seven years. You spoke of yourself as the great edu¬ 
cator; your speech was all about yourself. “I”—that is yourself— 
had done it all. Lord Derry’s policy was defined by Lord Bussell, in 
the House of the Common men, to be that of openly professing to say 
one thing, and meaning another. “We know,” observed Lord Bussell, 
“ that, for three years, the Government has been carried on upon the 
principle, that, having declared against any reduction whatever in the 
Franchise, the Ministers of the Crown, while they were persuading 
people to follow them in that course, meant all the time to make a 
larger reduction in the Franchise than was proposed by the Liberal 
party. The consequence was a course of deception which has been 
called by another name, but which must, I think, prevent any reliance 
upon a Government which openly avows that it does not mean what it 
says, but professes one thing and means another.” In this new politi¬ 
cal combat, Lord Bussell deserves the credit of having drawn the first 
blood, in the form of a letter* to the newspapers from you, our new 
Prime Minister. Lord Bussell has struck so heavily, that you had to 
rush forward to supply the deficiencies of your colleagues in the other 
House. Since Lord Malmesbury and the Duke of Marlborough did 
not satisfactorily answer Lord Bussell, you have adopted the course of 
writing to the morning journals the letter which appears below as a 

* TO THE EDITOR OF “THE TIMES.” 

Sir, —Lord Russell observed last night, in the House of Lords, that I “ boasted 
at Edinburgh that, while during seven years I opposed a reduction of the Borough 
Franchise, I had been all that time educating my party, with the view of bringing 
about a much greater reduction of the Franchise than that which my opponents had 
proposed.” As a general rule, I never notice misrepresentations of what I may have 
said ; but, as this charge against me was made in an august assembly, and by a late 
first Minister of the Crown, I will not refrain from observing that the charge has no 
foundation. Nothing of the kind was said by me at Edinburgh. I said there, that 
the Tory party, after the failure of their Bill of 1859, had been educated for seven 
years on the subject of Parliamentary Reform, and during that interval had arrived 
at five conclusions, which, with their authority, I had at various times announced, 

v i z . : _l. That the measure should be complete. 2. That the representation of no 

place should be entirely abrogated. 3. That there must be a real Boundary Com* 
mission. 4. That the County representation should be considerably increased. 5. 
That the Borough Franchise should be established on the principle of ratingand 
that these five points were accomplished in the Act of 1867. This is what I said at 
Edinburgh; and it is true.— -I am, Sir, your obedient servant, B. Disraeli. 

Downing Street, March 6, 1868. 


94 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


foot-note, and to which I have already adverted. The course you have 
taken is very unusual. If a Minister finds himself attacked in such a 
manner in one House of Parliament that he feels it incumbent upon 
him to make some reply, the rule is for him to entrust that duty to one 
of his colleagues in the House where his assailant is, or for himself to 
take in the House where he sits, some opportunity of indirectly refer¬ 
ring to what has been said in another place, or what may have ap¬ 
peared in the newspapers as having been said in another place. You, 
however, found that the charge against you has been made in an 
“ august assembly,” and by “ a late First Minister of the Crowmand 
being now First Minister of the Crown,—to the great annoyance of 
many blue-blooded noodles,—you address a letter to the newspapers, in 
answer to Lord Bussell’s attack. This course is, probably, not the 
most dignified. It is almost your first public act as our new Prime 
Minister on commencing your Administration. There is something sen¬ 
sational about it, and it may be doubted whether it in any respect im¬ 
proves your position. Every person who takes an interest in British 
politics, has read the report of what you said at the Edinburgh banquet. 
The whole speech was in the most triumphant tone. The Tories were 
the real Liberals. They had passed nearly all the good measures of 
this century. They were eminently the Beformers. Household Suf¬ 
frage was the old and popular Franchise of the country; and you had 
been educating your party to adopt it, while opposing the Bill of the 
late Government, and proposing guarantees which were tacitly acknow¬ 
ledged to be quite illusory. This, at least, was what you were under¬ 
stood to have said. The speech was commented on at the time by 
every prominent organ of public opinion, the Tory journals only treat¬ 
ing this reference to yourself as the educator of the party for Household 
Suffrage somewhat shyly. They did not like it, and passed it over 
without any remark. So extraordinary did your statements appear, 
and so inaccurate and unfair was your version of the recent Beforrn 
struggle, that on the day when the Parliament met before Christmas, 
Mr. Gladstone stated that he had intended calling the attention of the 
House of the Common men to some of your recent assertions, but that 
he would not do so while Mrs. Disraeli was supposed to be at the crisis 
of a very serious illness. You now, however, assure the public that 
all you said at Edinburgh was that the education of the Tories for seven 
years only meant that they should insist upon a complete measure, a 
real Boundary Commission, the increase of the County representation, 
the establishment of a rating Franchise in Boroughs, and the preser¬ 
vation of all enfranchised places from entire abolition. Had these five 
points, which you said were accomplished, been nakedly stated at Edin¬ 
burgh, they certainly would not have excited much enthusiasm on the 
part of the audience, or been received with surprise and amusement 
everywhere by those who read the reports of the speech. If politicians 
accept your version of what you meant, it may be considered another 
proof that you and any Cabinet of which you are the leading Minister, 
cannot but, as Lord Bussell said, have the unfortunate propensity of 
saying one thing and meaning another. Lord Bussell’s criticism, 
however small and snappish, is justified even by the explanatory letter 
which he has called forth. With regard to your five points themselves, 
it will be seen that they contain nothing about a great reduction of the 
Franchise; nothing about the great popular Suffrage, according to the 
old Constitution of the country. An abstract preference for a rating 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


95 


over a rental Franchise really means nothing. To maintain, also, that 
any measure proposed or accepted by the Tories “should be complete,” 
is ridiculous, when it is almost universally acknowledged that the re¬ 
distribution scheme is # not at all complete, and that it will have to he 
extended before any satisfactory settlement of this Reform question can 
be accomplished. The maintenance of the point, “that the represen¬ 
tation of no place should be entirely abrogated,” may, indeed, be called 
Conservative, because it is really opposed to any adequate representa¬ 
tion of the great commercial centers, according to their wealth and 
their population. Had this “ point ” been carried out in the Reform 
Act of 1832, the Nation should still have had Old Sarum. The Libe¬ 
rals must see how the maintenance of such a principle in the Irish Re¬ 
form Bill will please the Irish Tories, who have been unanimously 
declaring that the only Reform in the representation Ireland requires, is, 
the increase in the number of the representatives in Ulster, at the ex¬ 
pense of Munster and Connaught. You are, however, bound to act on 
the same principle in Ireland that you have applied to England. We 
are, indeed, to have an Irish Reform Bill, and “the measure, in its 
general character, will follow the principles already sanctioned in this 
House.” Such are your words of last evening. l)o they require any 
explanation ? We shall have to wait tor the “ details” of the measure 
before deciding on the merits of the new Bill giving Household Suffrage 
to Ireland. You have taught us that a principle of Reform is nothing 
without the details. But the letter to the newspapers, in reply to Lord 
Russell, is symptomatic of uneasiness. In both Houses of Parliament 
there is a disposition to speak unpleasant truths, and to watch nar¬ 
rowly your actions. You seek still to make use ot Lord Derby : the 
Numa of the Tories would wish to be considered in constant consulta¬ 
tion with “ the Rupert of debate,” as his nymph Egeria. The decep¬ 
tion, however, cannot be successfully maintained. You must depend 
upon yourself; and the task is already one of considerable difficulty. 
You find yourself jealously watched. You have not only the House of 
the Common men to deal with, but the entire Nation; and your 
Parliamentary maneuvering, which has been somewhat dexterous, will 
not satisfy the British public. 

What do you now , as a literary gentleman and as a sensible man, really 
think of the Reports of “ The Boundaries Commission ,” and of “ The 
Schools' Inquiry Commission" ?—is a question which I must propose for 
your consideration before concluding the present letter . 

Independently of political considerations, great interest attaches to 
the Report of the Boundaries Commission. It is a valuable contribu¬ 
tion to our topographical knowledge in that particular which has the 
greatest social importance,—the distribution ol population in England 
and Wales. Within the memory of the present generation, new cen¬ 
ters of industry and active life have been organized in various paits ol 
the country; the great towns have outgrown their tormei limits , and 
the surging tide of humanity has overflowed its ancient boundaries. 
The enormous suburbs which have been called into existence in the 
neighborhood of London would elsewhere be considered great cities. 
The like growth and progress have taken place in nearly every con¬ 
siderable towm of the Queendom; and, therefore, supposing that we 
maintain the artificial distinction between Borough and County repre¬ 
sentation, to revise the ancient lines ol demarcation becomes absolutely 
necessary. Furthermore, the necessity is chronic; lor any settlement 


96 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


effected now, will not correctly represent topographical facts thirty or 
fifty years hence. None of our large towns are yet finished; and each 
of them will probably increase as rapidly in the time of our sons as in 
our own. The Reform Act of 1867 empowered # the Commissioners to 
inquire respecting the propriety of extending the old Boroughs, but not 
of contracting them. Last Session, Mr. Bright urged strenuously, but 
in vain, that there should be a power of recommending the reduction, 
as well as the enlargement, of areas ; and, if his wise counsel had pre¬ 
vailed, the Report would not contain, as it does, references to anoma¬ 
lies, which, though utterly indefensible, the Commissioners are not 
authorized to amend. One of the most striking lessons of the Report 
is this, that it renders the absurdities and irregularities of the late Re¬ 
form Act more conspicuous than ever. Instead of being a settlement, 
that ill-drawn measure has rendered further changes inevitable, by 
aggravating several of the former anomalies of the representative sys¬ 
tem. It is impossible that the present “ settlement” can subsist for 
long. The British people are tolerant of old-established anomalies; 
antiquity reconciles them to much that has gradually become irregular 
and grotesque in the Constitution; but there is no ground for exer¬ 
cising a like indulgence with reference to the fantastic innovations of 
yesterday. The value of the Boundaries Report is to be found rather 
in what it suggests than in what it expresses. It may be safely as¬ 
sumed that the Commissioners have done their work as well as it could 
be done ; but they disclose in almost every page the fact, that our whole 
representative system is in a state of transition. The change recom¬ 
mended in the Blue Book may stave off troubles for a while. The pre¬ 
sent House of the Common men is certainly not the body from which 
we should expect a masterly, comprehensive treatment of this or any 
other abstruse subject requiring statesmanship of a high order. The 
policy now in vogue is that of temporary expedients, and every measure 
brought into the existing Parliament is tolerably sure to be a sort of 
political jury-mast. Our representative system, indeed, is full of utterly 
indefensible inequalities and grievances, to which it is impossible that 
the Nation can submit; and if prudent evasion may render it possible 
to escape a little longer the necessity of grappling with the anomalies, 
no stronger evidence can be wanted than the Report of the Boundary 
Commission, to demonstrate that the Reform Act of 1867 was merely 
the beginning of Parliamentary Reform. 

Mr. Frazer, the Commissioner appointed to inquire into the em¬ 
ployment of women and children in agricultural labor, told the recent 
meeting of the “Central Chamber of Agriculture” to which I have 
already alluded in a former letter,—that he had visited Norfolk, Essex, 
Suffolk, and Gloucestershire. He found boys eleven years of age some¬ 
times employed for fourteen hours a day,—and, of course, destitute of 
education. One-third of the rural schools he found efficient, another 
third merely useful,—by which, I must suppose, he means rather bet¬ 
ter than nothing,—and the remainder, schools only in name. The 
“real obstacle to education,” he said, “was the poverty of the agricul¬ 
tural laborer.” He also adverted to the curious fact of the great ine¬ 
quality of wages in different counties,—the Northumberland laborer 
earning 18s a week, and the Worcestershire, Herefordshire, and Glou¬ 
cestershire laborer only 9s. Mr. George Andrews, —a wiseacre from 
the Somersetshire Chamber,—saw no difficulty in explaining this fact 
upon the principle of supply and demand. This gentleman, like many 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


97 


others, lias got hold of words without the corresponding ideas. The 
laws of supply and demand tend to the equalization of wages, prices, 
and profits ; and when wages, or profits, or prices remain very unequal 
in districts not far apart, some special causes must operate to prevent 
the natural level being reached. Agricultural laborers were, for cen¬ 
turies after their nominal emancipation, treated as serfs. They were 
fixed to the soil on which they were born by the indirect action of law, 
such as that of settlement, and the state of mental stagnation kept up 
in rural districts by the influence of squirearchy was unfavorable to the 
development of anything like enterprise and locomotion. Sir G. Jen- 
kinson remarked, that, where wages were low, the labor was compara¬ 
tively valueless,—or, in addition to money payments, there were pay¬ 
ments in kind. Lieutenant-Colonel Brise (Essex Chamber) agreed 
that it was inexpedient that children under ten years of age should be 
employed, hut he feared the reduction that would take place in the re¬ 
sources of the parents, if their children were not allowed to work before 
that age. Bigotry and cant were represented at this gathering by Mr. 
Pell (Chairman of the Council of last year), who was against a rate in 
aid, because it would bring with it a “ conscience clause,”—that is to 
say, a clause which precludes the enforcement of sectarian teaching,— 
the only kind of teaching fanaticism approves. Now, if you look to the 
facts,—not new, hut very striking,—brought out in this discussion, you 
shall see how thoroughly Toryism must he defeated before there can be 
any possibility of emancipating the agricultural population. The pre¬ 
sent system of land-owning, with a complete divorcement of the actual 
cultivator from proprietorship in the soil, makes the peasantry so poor 
that they cannot afford to give up the wretched earnings of little chil¬ 
dren under ten years of age,—earnings obtained at the cost of dwarfing 
their mental faculties, and often injuring their physical constitutions 
for life. If the rural population had Votes, and the Ballot, the Nation 
would soon see active measures in operation for their improvement;— 
without such aids, they will languish in comparative misery, though 
some little may be done for their good. Self-satisfied and wealthy re¬ 
spectabilities are not at all shocked by such facts as Mr. Frazer details, 
hut the degradation of a rural population is a portion of feudalism. It 
is founded upon man’s iniquities, not upon Nature’s laws ; and Demo¬ 
cracy must march on towards its peaceful victories, and emancipate the 
peasantry, in spite of all that Toryism, and its close relation, Whig- 
gism, can do. Passing from the education of the poor to that of the 
richer classes, I find the Oxford Heads of Houses appealing to the 
Archbishop of Canterbury to save them from Liberal legislation, as pro¬ 
posed by Mr. Goschen and Mr. Coleridge. They want to keep the old 
Universities as sectarian as the times will permit. They set up a howl 
of pious horror at the Idea of Dissenters of any kind becoming mem¬ 
bers of the governing body. The plain tendency of Liberalism, as ap¬ 
plied to ecclesiastical matters, is to increase the efficiency of the Church 
as a religious institution, and to prevent its being made a tool of for 
re-actionary politics. Let the Church swallow up Dissent as fast as it 
can, by being better than Dissent; hut when theological tests are em¬ 
ployed, or sought to he maintained, for the purpose of giving a secta¬ 
rian and narrow character to what ought to be great National Schools 
of Learning, the Nation should see Toryism in one of its most malig¬ 
nant, and, let me trust, in one of its most perishable forms. Freedom 
of education is an essential part of political liberty. As the people ad- 



08 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


vance in extensions of popular power, the Nation ought also to advance 
in the instruction of the people, and no difference ot opinion on matters 
purely theological ought to stand in the way of diffusing accurate know¬ 
ledge as widely as we can. If Reformers pass from the Education 
Question to that of Pauperism and Local Expenditure, they find them¬ 
selves again in a region where Toryism presents itself as an enemy to 
be fought and vanquished, and where they may be sure the Tory party 
will agree to nothing satisfactory except under compulsion. Mr. 
Goschen has called National attention to the fact that improvements 
demanded in London for the diminution of pauperism cannot be made 
under the present system of taxation. The rates in large parishes are 
enormous, and the Metropolitan Board has severely increased a pres¬ 
sure previously too great. Now, Tory politicians may go some way on 
the road towards equalization of Poor’s Rates, but they will not tax 
the rich in their fair proportion for improvements made chiefly for their 
benefit, nor will they agree to give the metropolis the benefit of one or 
more real and effective Corporations for local management. They have 
thrown all the great parishes into confusion by their ratepaying clause 
in the Reform Bill, and this may operate beneficially by stimulating 
attention to the whole question of local burdens. If Ignorance and 
Pauperism are to be effectually assailed, local expenditure must be 
largely increased; and Reformers need not say this cannot be afforded 
while Imperial taxation remains so high. Local taxation is a very 
serious burden upon all but the rich, and to ask struggling tradesmen 
to pay more, without relieving them in other directions, would be to 
make an impracticable as well as an unfair demand. 

Unless a people be educated, good government becomes impossible; 
and, when they become educated, they will be satisfied with nothing 
less than the best government which their institutions permit, and that 
their intelligence and wisdom can devise. These are the barest of tru¬ 
isms, and have been repeated over and over again until they have lost 
all their force, and people acquiesce in them as matters which may 
concern their neighbors, but certainly not themselves. It is this very 
apathy—this easy concurrence in all and every plan proposed for popu¬ 
lar Education—that, in effect, renders progress and legislation on the 
subject difficult. It by no means follows, because everybody is of one 
mind upon the desirability of a certain end, that the end desired will 
be attained. Eager, active, enthusiastic men are rendered more ear¬ 
nest by a stubborn opposition: but the wet blanket of cold, apathetic 
sympathy is more than they can bear. They are clogged by it; not a 
limb can they move; and the energies that should be applied to carry 
a measure into effect are wasted in urging forward their kind but 
lieavy-breeclied friends, who sum up all the virtues of political life in 
resting and being thankful. The only formidable enemies of popular 
Education are its friends. But if there is a difficulty,—and I grant it 
is no easy task,—to draw up any popular scheme of Education that 
shall satisfy lukewarm supporters, ardent friends, and the few fossil, 
old-world enemies that still linger among us, there ought to be no diffi¬ 
culty in immediately utilizing the resources that are already at hand. 
From the Report of the Schools’ Inquiry Commission, it seems that 
the total net income applicable from endowments to educational pur¬ 
poses is £277,000, and that the number of scholars is nearly 40,000. 
Excluding the scholars and the income of the nine great public schools 
(Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Westminster, Shrewsbury, Winchester, Char- 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


99 


ter-House, Merchant-Tailors, and St. Paul’s), there are £212,000 
divided among 820 schools and 36,874 hoys, of whom 9,279 are hoard¬ 
ers and 27,595 day scholars. Now, let you, as Prime Minister of Bri¬ 
tain, and lately a gentleman of the Press, see what is done with this 
money. At Boswortli, where the school has an income of £792 a year, 
the head-master taught three hoarders, and no others, the under-master 
attending “ only when he chose." At Thame, with an income of £300, 
there were two masters and one hoy in the school. This is nearly as 
had as the story that used to he told of the Coggesliall Volunteers,— 
ten officers to two privates, whom they drilled to death. At Butter- 
wick, with £312, there were two boys learning the declensions; Hum- 
berstone, with £737, had five or six; and Boswortli (I presume a 
different place from that mentioned above) had £1,120 a year, with 
three hoys learning grammar. At Botesdale, there were six pupils, 
whom the master sent to a private school at his own expense, and 
lived in the school-house, without doing any work whatever. This had 
gone on for forty years. A similar arrangement exists at Coxwold ; 
and at Snareston, the master ‘‘ chiefly occupied himself in farming 
eight acres of the school land." So far, however, there was some pre¬ 
text of teaching, hut in other places there was not even this decent 
hypocrisy. At Whitgift’s Hospital, Croydon, not a single pupil had 
attended the school during the thirty and odd years that the late mas¬ 
ter (who died last year) held the appointment. In two schools visited 
by the Commissioners, the masters were too deaf to hear the lessons ; 
in another, he was helpless from paralysis; and, in many instances, 
the masters held appointments or filled offices which prevented their 
giving due time to the discharge of their proper duties. It would he 
curious to know how many of these masters were clergymen ; and cer¬ 
tainly the recommendation of the Report as to “ a wiser choice of mas¬ 
ters," and that they “ought not to be limited to clergymen,” is in 
many ways significant. Coming nearer your home, you will find mis¬ 
management and peculation very abundant. Out of twenty-seven 
schools belonging to City Companies, only ten or twelve “may be said 
to be really useful," the remainder being “ badly managed.” The re¬ 
venues of Christ’s Hospital amount to £50,000, out of which £48,000 
are spent on education; hut,—With what result ? Mr. Fearon says that 
hoys are often obliged to go to other schools after leaving the Hospital, 
before they are fit to enter business. “It is difficult,” adds the Com¬ 
mission, “to conceive a more damning fact to the administration of a 
great school, with such advantages as are enjoyed by Christ’s Hospi¬ 
tal." Dulwich College receives £17,000, and spends only £3,000 on 
education. The opportunity of thoroughly reforming this great charity 
was thrown away a few years ago by the mismanagement of certain of 
the theatrical profession who took the matter in hand, and who thought 
more of themselves than of the public. Now, these are matters which 
immediately concern the working classes and the small shopkeepers, 
and others immediately above them, who are the great patrons of those 
“ classical and commercial academies," which, according to Matthew 
Arnold, “have succeeded in turning out the most uncultivated middle 
class in Europe.” Before any scheme is carried for compulsory, or 
even voluntary rating, measures should he taken for effectually reform¬ 
ing the abuses I have pointed out, and of utilizing to the utmost the 
liberal gifts of past generations. Too long the children of the poor 
have been defrauded of their rights. What shall you do in this grave 


G 


100 THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 

matter ?—is a question wliicli should he constantly repeated throughout 
the Nation. 

I am, dear Sir, yours very respectfully, an active promoter of the 
progress of Political Science,—and, like yourself, not at all relying on 
either the assumptions or nicknames of ancestors for my success in life, 

John Scott. 


LETTER VII. 

Belfast, 59, Victoria Terrace, 
March 18 th, 1868. 

The Right Hon. B. Disraeli, Prime 
Minister of Britain. 

Dear Sir, —The long and justly demanded “ Representation of 
the people of Scotland Bill” which had been introduced and read the 
first time upon the 17th of February last, and upon which followed 
some important discussion, to which I will immediately advert, was 
read a second time without any special remarks, upon the evening of 
the 9tli current. On a second reading it is only the principle of a Bill 
that is supposed to he at issue, and there are no principles at issue in 
the Scotch Reform Bill. Household Suffrage in the Boroughs, £12 
rating occupation Franchise in the Counties, and a £5 property quali¬ 
fication, are proposals which are accepted at present by every politician 
of every party. No one objects to them, and no one has to defend 
them. It is the details of the Bill which alone elicit feeling and pro¬ 
voke remark, and the details of the Bill are not part of the Government 
measure. Nothing can exceed the latitude which the Government 
pretends to allow in settling the only portions of the Bill which are of 
the slightest interest. The Scotch bitterly object to the scheme of 
redistribution proposed. The Government professes its complete indif¬ 
ference. Whatever scheme, therefore, the Scotch may like they can 
have. When introduced the Bill was propounded by the Lord Advocate 
in a very unadorned but clear manner. The Franchise portion of 
it was soon dismissed, with a statement that both in Boroughs and 
Counties the qualification would be the same as that in England; 
namely, Household Suffrage in the former and £12 occupation in the 
latter case, with personal payment of rates. It was noticeable that it 
is not thought necessary to enact a Lodger Franchise for Scotland. 
The subject of distribution of Seats was more elaborated, but in the 
event it came to this, that Scotland is now offered seven more represen¬ 
tative members, who are to be added to the existing members of the 
House ! This proposition evoked the only interruption to the perfect 
silence which had prevailed, and that came in the shape of a doubtful- 
sounding cheer from the Scottish members, which received its inter¬ 
pretation afterwards when it was so generally laid down that they 
wanted more members for Scotland, but not from the source indicated 
in the Bill. An explanation of this measure was thus listened to with 
respectful attention, but without eagerness, and it called forth little 
more than a spirited protest against one of the main points. The 
Lord Advocate expounded the chief provisions of a Bill which differs 
but slightly from that laid on the table last session. The Suffrage, 
both in Borough and County, is to be on the English pattern. In the 
Boroughs, all who are rated to the poor and who pay their rates are to 



POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


101 


have a Vote, and due precautions will be taken to prevent the improper 
omission of names from the register. Since the distinction between 
Householders and Lodgers does not prevail in Scotland, the measure 
contains no clause specifically establishing a Lodger Franchise; but 
Mr. Gordon explained that the Government were ready to insert a 
declaratory clause should it be considered advisable. In the Counties, 
the ownership Franchise will be £5 clear yearly value, and the occupa¬ 
tion Franchise will be £12 rated value, including all dwelling-places 
between £12 and £50. So far, the Lord Advocate encountered neither 
assent nor dissent on the part of his audience. The House of the Com¬ 
mon men heard him with a listless quietude, and only roused up a 
little when he entered upon the ticklish subject of redistribution—the 
crucial section of the Bill. It has long been well known that the 
present Government had adopted the views of Lord Russell’s Admi¬ 
nistration, and had concurred in the propriety of adding seven Seats 
to the representation of Scotland. Whence can those Seats be ob¬ 
tained ? The present Cabinet—differing in that respect from Lord 
Russell’s —proposes to overcome the difficulty by originating new con¬ 
stituencies, and augmenting the number of the House of the Common 
men to 665. The distribution of the seven Seats was next explained. 
Two members are to be given to the four universities of Edinburgh, 
Glasgow, Aberdeen, and St. Andrew’s. One additional member is 
allotted to the Counties of Lanark, Ayr, and Aberdeen. Glasgow is 
also to receive another Seat. But, following the English precedent, 
the Government is to give the electors of Glasgow only two votes ; in 
other words, the representation of minorities is to be imported into 
Scotland. The House of the Common men, which had shown symp¬ 
toms of dissent when the proposal to increase the total number of 
members was announced, objected more loudly when the Lord Advo¬ 
cate quietly gave the third member to the minority. But the dissatis¬ 
faction was even louder as he explained that the seventh Seat would 
be conceded to a composite constituency, made up of small towns; 
and the note of dissent reached a climax when he proposed to add 
Hawick and Galashiels to the Haddington Boroughs, and Alloa to Stir¬ 
ling. Mr. Baxter at once took ground against the scheme, describing 
the plan of distribution as far worse than had been anticipated. Passing 
by that part of the Bill, however, he energetically denounced the pro¬ 
posal to increase the number of members in a House which was already 
too large. His protest, delivered with spirit, was warmly applauded. 
He declared that the Scotch people would prefer to postpone their 
claim to additional representatives until the Reformed Parliament 
should assemble, rather than pay the heavy price demanded by the 
Government. You spoke for a considerable time in favor of the 
scheme, using the arguments with which you have made the House 
of Common men familiar on other occasions ; but though, as a matter 
of course, the Bill was read a second time, your words had little effect 
on the scanty audience, which wus composed almost entirely ol Scotch 
members. As for Mr. Baxter s suggestion, that the Bill should be 
delayed until it could be dealt with by the next Parliament, lathei 
than passed in its present form, such an expedient is unnecessary; 
since seven Seats can be obtained, either by disfranchising the English 
Borough villages whose population is under 5,000, or by taking one 
member from all Boroughs with fewer than 20,000 inhabitants. Plainly, 
the contest over the Scotch Reform Bill will be waged, first, on the 


102 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


question of increasing the numbers of tlie House, or abolishing the 
English village constituencies ; and next, upon the plan of distributing 
the Seats ; for on this point the Ministerial scheme is open to the 
gravest objections. The main object, however, is to frustrate the 
unwise proposal to alter the figure 658, at least so far as any augmen¬ 
tation is concerned; and on that subject Mr. Baxter’s remarks tend 
to show that the Scotch Liberals, at least, will stand by sound consti¬ 
tutional principle. Any injustice on the part of the existing Parliament 
could, it is true, be very promptly and easily rectified in a reformed 
Parliament; and Tories especially should be too prudent to set the 
hazardous example of tampering with the existing number of the House 
of the Common men. 

The main feature in the Scotch Beform Bill is, of course, the 
reduction of the Franchise, and in all essential points the Bill on this 
head follows the precedent of the English Act of last Session. A 
rating Household Suffrage in Boroughs, and a £12 rating qualification 
in Counties, are its leading features. One or two Scotch members 
feebly raised the familiar objection to what used at one time to be 
called the principle or mode of making the personal payment of rates 
essential. These objections are excellent objections in themselves. 
No one now affects to think that the payment of rates carries any 
principle of Political Science with it, and if the rating' clauses of the 
English Act give any annoyance to electors, or interfere in any serious 
way with the social arrangements of the inhabitants of Boroughs, they 
may be swept away by a new Parliament. But it is not to be supposed 
that the battle of last Session is to be fought over again this Session 
for the sake of extending justice to Scotland. No one on. the South 
side of the Tweed pretends to feel any great interest in the Scotch 
Beform Bill. Bating clauses have been thought,—by the majority of 
those pretending to represent the Nation,—good enough for England, 
and so they must do, I suspect, for the moment, for Scotland also. 
Theoretically, it certainly seems absurd to fabricate an artificial im¬ 
pediment to the Franchise which every politician must know to be 
fruitful of petty annoyances, and which cannot exist for more than a 
very short time. But if the Scotch people and their members wish for 
a Beform Bill this Session, they will have to be content for the present 
with what the existing House of the Common men will give them, and 
it certainly will not give them what it refused to England. Whether 
the people of Scotland shall have a Beform Bill or not this Session is 
really of very little importance, for they know they can always have 
one whenever they are inclined to put themselves on the same footing 
with the English people. They may, if they please, wait until the 
rating clauses are abolished in England, and probably their patience 
would not be very severely tried. In a calm phlegmatic way, however, 
the people of Scotland seem to wish for a Beform Bill, and they are 
assured by all their representatives that they are far more fit. for the 
exercise of political power than the English people are. If so, they 
must have their Beform Bill by all means, and the measure meted to 
England last year must be meted out to them without any grudging 
this year. All this is so very obvious, that the whole discussion turned 
on what you termed the minor details of the Bill. There was nothing 
else to discuss ; and as the Scotch members could scarcely receive a 
Scotch Beform Bill in perfect silence, they naturally talked about the 
portions of the Bill which really afforded matter for debate. And 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


108 


even on what, comparatively speaking, may he termed trivial points, 
there is, when the interests of individuals and localities are affected, a 
great deal to say. The Scotch people through their representatives 
assert that they are entitled to more members than they have at pre¬ 
sent. Twenty-five was the figure at which they first put their proper 
increase, but their claims have now dwindled down to fifteen. The 
Government offers them seven, and out of this offer arise the two 
questions, whether these additional seven Seats are to be gained by 
increasing the members of the House of the Common men, or by dis¬ 
franchising some small English Boroughs; and, secondly, whether the 
Government has hit on the right scheme of distributing these seven 
Seats when the mode of their origination has been decided. You say 
that you consider it impossible to persuade English members to let the 
seven Seats be taken from England and given to Scotland. So the 
number of the members of the House of the Common men must be 
increased, or the Scotch will practically fail to get any more repre¬ 
sentatives. Mr. Gladstone expressed a contrary opinion, and pro¬ 
nounced it to be far preferable that the requisite number of Seats should 
be taken from English Boroughs. It was with something of a sneer 
that Mr. Gladstone’s opinion was spoken of. What is meant by this? 
Mr. Gladstone is one of the foremost, if not the foremost, man in 
English public life, and he represents a very important constituency. 
Why should he not be at liberty to visit the chief towns of the County 
division which he represents ; and why should he not say, if he pleases, 
that it is better not to increase the unwieldy numbers of the House of 
the Common men, but to satisfy Scotland at the expense of the tiny 
decaying Boroughs of Southern England ? The very people who join 
in the sneers at Mr. Gladstone are the first to oppose any dissent from 
their own crotchets. The Government has proposed that seven shall 
be the number. It does not appear to you as a specially good or 
desirable number. It is not calculated with reference to population, or 
wealth, or anything in particular. It was only chosen because it hap¬ 
pened to be the number which Mr. Gladstone had chosen ; and the 
present Government adopted it, just as you adopted his Budgets in 
block,—because he is understood to be clever at figures. But if he 
had any cause for choosing it, you had none; and the Scotch can take 
any other figure in moderation which they set their fancies on. All 
they have to do is to fix on a number, stick to it, and get the House 
of the Common men to sanction it. 

There is no greater spectacle in the world than the British House 
of the Common men; and when the great giants of debate put forth 
their powers the mind must be very dull indeed that does not respond 
to the sound of battle. No deliberative assembly except the House of the 
Common men can boast of four orators equal to Gladstone, Disraeli, 
Bright and Lowe. But even when the four great orators do not speak 
there is sufficient about the House to interest the people who have 
waited so patiently to get into the gallery. Scotland, at the time of the 
union, only paid one fortieth of the taxation, and now she is so rich 
and so well-to-do as to pay a fifth, and she ought to have at least 25 
new members ; whilst the Irish members ought to be reduced to 72. 
Ireland pays £6,000,000 and receives back £2,740,000 ; whilst Scot¬ 
land pays £8,400,000 and receives back only £262,000. Mr. Smollett 
had a very doleful account to give of Glasgow, where the constituency 
will be increased to 80,000 or 40,000 electors of a lower class than 


104 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


those who now hold the Suffrage. The representation would be brought 
down to one uniform hue—this Liberal Blue above and the Democratic 
Bed below, but still Mr. Smollett agreed to support the bill as an in¬ 
evitable necessity. Mr. Smollett believes that the Bill will increase 
bribery. Mr. McLaren brought to the debate the curious fact that the 
income tax of Edinburgh exceeds the income tax of Birmingham, and, 
except London, Liverpool, and Bristol, that the Customs duty paid at 
the port of Leith exceeds the amount at any port in the United Queen- 
dom. So Mr. McLaren stood up for more members, as did also Mr. 
McLagan, Colonel Sykes, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Moncrieff, to whom 
Sir James Ferguson gave a reply that the Government might be found 
“ squeezable” in committee, whereupon Mr. Crum Ewing took up the 
cue, and Mr. Laing defended the Government from the “moderate” 
point of view, and urged that Scotland should be content with ten 
additional members ; but Mr. Ellice, speaking with a decision most 
unusual, contradicted Mr. Laing as to the opinions of the Scotch people, 
and Mr. Ellice refused to accept any number of members encumbered 
as the Bill was with rating clauses. 

I am no Pythagorean to maintain the mystic sanctity of numbers ; 
and it would puzzle my exegetical friend Dr. Cumming himself to get 
much in that way out of the “ six hundred and fifty-eight which stands 
at present as the fixed total of the British House of the Common men. 
But it is time to tell you very plainly and positively, that your scheme 
for satisfying the claims of Scotland by adding to the muster-roll of 
the Bepresentative Chamber cannot and must not be accepted. Em¬ 
phatically, it will not do ; and I say this with no wish to put stones 
under the wheel of your Scotch Beform Bill. The true Liberals are 
willing and anxious to see you carry a measure, and so to square the 
matter up before the new Parliament is convened ; for it would be in 
the highest degree inconvenient to have that Parliament re-opening 
the vexed questions of Seats and Suffrages, when it ought to get to other 
business of a sufficiently pressing nature. I know, too, that you have 
your work cut out for you, in regard to satisfying the Scottish represen¬ 
tatives, who are naturally thinking more about squeezing you for new 
members than about your Parliamentary and Ministerial difficulties, or 
the immediate interests of representative Government. But there are 
better ways than that which you have chosen ; and you must discover 
them yourself, or else accept suggestions from non-official advisers. 
Beformers must take a leaf out of your own book, and turn determined 
Tories upon this most important point. I freely grant that there is 
nothing in the eternal fitness of things to make six hundred and fifty- 
eight a constitutional quantum; while six hundred and sixty-five, as 
you propose, or six hundred and sixty-eight, as Mr. Laing asks, would 
ruin politics arithmetically. The House has grown from its ancient 
strength of six score burgesses to the present dimensions by gradual 
increments ; and, on abstract grounds, there is no real cause or 
ground why it should not go on growing. But, practically, such a 
resource was brought to an end at the Union, and I denounce its 
revival as a most pernicious makeshift, which must be either abandoned 
at once by its proposer, or strenuously resisted with all the force which 
can be marshalled. An increase would make a most fatal precedent, 
and disturb the silent understanding of many years. We have stopped 
at the present figure ever since the Irish Parliament was amalgamated 
with the English; but—Where are we to stop if,to save the rotten Boroughs 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


105 


of England, and throw a sop to the Scotch representatives, you are 
permitted to set the example of adding to the House ? New Boroughs 
will spring up, new Reform Bills will be proposed ; and,—How is the 
demand for accommodation in the Chamber to be met either by Ministers 
or upholsterers ? We cannot stop at an increase of seven or ten, but 
we can stop at the number now consecrated by long tradition, the more 
firmly since that number is far too large already. It would be a posi¬ 
tive madness, a willful paltering with the stability of our system, to 
rescue the rotten Boroughs by such a device as that proposed by you. 
Had it been suggested by Lord Russell, you would certainly have been 
aware of that fact, and you must know that, if you maintain your 
intention, you will, at any hazard, be opposed by the Liberal party. 
In point of fact, the Parliament itself, in the famous words to which 
it once listened, might be impeached as a body which “has increased, 
is increasing, and ought to be diminished.” There ought to be a change 
made in its muster-roll; but that change should be one of decrease. 
Everybody knows that there is no room in the Chamber for the mem¬ 
bers. On any exciting night senators have to squat like Hottentots on 
the gangways, or pant and jostle at the doors, amid impatient shouts 
for order and decorum. A great division, instead of being characterized 
by dignity and quiet, is already a sight like a cattle-fair; and to hear 
an important debate our representatives must scramble for a place at 
prayers, and leave a card or a hat as their representative. V itli diffi¬ 
culty is a place preserved even for the best-known men. On a summer 
night “the smoke of the torment” of our thickly-packed legislators 
ascends as from a Topliet. And the inconvenience threatens to increase 
rather than diminish. A Parliament elected by Household Suffrage 
Voters will be more dependent on the goodwill of the electors than a 
Parliament elected under a Franchise which subjects many Boroughs 
to Soil-Lord control. The new members will, therefore, be more prone 
to use the floor of the House for addressing their constituents. _ With 
a fresh desire to make speeches, will come a greater regularity in the 
attendance, and the House will be more crowded than ever. Nor will 
that be the only new source of trouble. Not only will there be more 
talk, but there will be more to talk about. The incieasing wealth of 
the country will raise up an host of financial and commercial subjects; 
the railway system awaits discussion and revision ; local business is 
every year pressing with more weight; a crowd of great public ques¬ 
tions will demand legislative settlement; and since the demands on the 
time of the House are thus growing in magnitude, it is essential to 
keep down the number of men that have the privilege of speaking. 
Equally necessary is it to take measures for rendering the House a 
place of business, and not a club or a lounge for idleness and leisure. 
But you would increase the present difficulty by setting a precedent 
which might render the size of the House unmanageable. And, by thus 
placiim new obstacles in the way of business, you would furnish the 
members with new temptations to waste time m purposeless debate. 
It would be monstrous, then, to pack the bursting Chamber with 
another half-score, till the scene should become that oi a Caucus or ol 
a Stump-Convention, instead of the proudest and most powerful deliber¬ 
ative Council in the world. What ought to be done is not to add a 
single sitter to the list, but anxiously to reduce the number ; and, 
whfle giving perfect justice to Scotland and Ireland, the national voice 
might sweep out of existence the wretched category of little Boroughs 


106 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND ELAMING SWORD OE 


which “ cumber the ground.” Of course this equitable plan finds 
small favor with rich Tory lords and squires ; but, if you add to the 
House of the Common men, the intense discomfort and paralysis of 
business will be the last straw upon the camel’s back; and, as sure as 
ever the new Parliament assembles, a resolute vote will clear the 
benches of the pocket-members, and the matter of Seats and Suffrages 
will be revived, whether or not it be convenient and safe. Here, then, 
is a point upon which the entire Liberal party must unite like one man, 
and declare that Scotland should have her fresh Seats at the cost of 
the marketable Boroughs, and not at the cost of the public welfare. 
Energetic action will be demanded from every man who means to be 
called “ a Liberal” at the next election, and “ a supporter of Mr. 
Gladstone.” You are very ingenious, and may find a middle course, 
or a dozen middle courses, if you please ; but this course you shall not 
take, unless you should be master of the House of the Common men. 
It is mischievous and evil to the last degree—it will cause a most 
serious and unfortunate precedent, all the more because it has no 
manner of apology, except to stop the mouths of Scotch members, and 
save a set of little venal holes and corners, which tremble already to 
their fall, because of the Bribery Bill. As for Mr. Laing, the Lord of 
the Hebrew Becords deliver the Nation from Mr. Laing and from 
Liberalism of the school of Wick. It was perfectly w r ell shown by 
many mouths how he calumniated the opinion of Scotland on the 
evening of Monday the 9tli current; and Keformers are pretty well 
assured that Scotland is too intelligent and patriotic to be bribed with 
this stolen handful of seats, when, by insisting upon the equitable way 
of proceeding, it can purify the House of the Common men, diminish 
the notorious nuisance of its plethora of members, and get proper pro¬ 
vision for itself. We want an “ Overcrowding Act” for the Chamber ; 
and such would be the motion of Mr. Baxter. At all events the Nation 
cannot and will not see disturbed, in a contrary direction, the line 
drawn now for so many years ; it would be a deadly specimen of false 
growth—-an example of Ministerial tinkering with -the Constitution to 
mend a patch in a session. Every good Liberal must oppose the idea 
to the death; and commence a crusade against it from this moment till 
the hour when you shall forego it, or be forced to lay it aside. 

The Scotch Reform Bill has thus raised a very curious point as 
to the numbers of English, Scotch, and Irish representatives in the 
House of the Common men. The Reform Act of 1832 settled the 
number of the House, and also the proportion at the time of each 
kingdom; but modern circumstances have altered the respective 
positions of each country, and Scotland now calls for more members, 
on the very substantial bases of increase of population, wealth, and 
taxation. Comparatively there are parts of England which have made 
no corresponding progress, and there are also parts of England which 
have progressed even more than Scotland. Lancashire, Yorkshire, 
Cheshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Warwickshire, and Stafford¬ 
shire represent a manufacturing production, and of course population 
and taxation, unexampled in the world, and it is believed that these 
English Counties contribute more by machine power than all the labor 
by hand of the whole world. In your recent letter to the journals, 
you allege that the Tory party long ago resolved that no place in 
England should be wholly disfranchised, and there are some Tories in 
favor of such a determination ; but if it is once admitted, there is only 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


107 


one remedy—to increase tlie number of members of tlie future House of 
the Common men. If the principle of increase is admitted, it is diffi¬ 
cult to understand why tlie increase should be limited to seven members 
for Scotland, or that, as lias been suggested, there should be a decrease 
in the representation of Ireland. A very bard nut it is to crack, either 
of increase or decrease, because the question of proportion is disturbed, 
and that once altered it is not so easy to find a new basis, unless all 
topographical and local distinctions are swe}it away, and the three 
Queendoms are regarded as one country. Scotchmen have nothing 
now to gain by tlie maintenance of a separate nationality, and even 
Irishmen will admit that there is more to be got out of tlie connexion 
with England than by the cultivation of a national feeling. If it could 
be done I should regard such an assimilation as one of tlie happiest 
effects of tlie new Reform Act. Scotchmen have hit a good mark when 
they ask for the removal of members from the small English Boroughs 
to Scotland, for Scotchmen are shrewd enough to see that a gain of 
seven members in the form of an addition to the House is not the same 
thing as a deduction of seven from England and an addition of seven 
to Scotland. They are not even content with seven, and they have 
raised the great question of redistribution in a form which will compel 
careful consideration so soon as the Irish Reform Bill is brought up. 
Now it may be admitted that there is nothing sacred in the number of 
658, and that 665 is just as good a total as the first, but then comes 
the question might not 500 or even 800 be better still. The House 
is too large for a deliberative assembly, and the House itself is too 
small for the number of 665. It may be made larger, but the question 
is,—May not the contents be reduced ? There is a good story told of a 
certain Chancellor of the Exchequer who was pestered by the com¬ 
plaints of a clerk that his desk was too low, and that he was obliged to 
stoop most inconveniently at his work. At last the great Minister 
came to see the desk and the clerk, and the clerk availed himself fully 
of the opportunity to exhibit his rounded shoulders in the act of writ¬ 
ing. “ Ah, I see,” said the statesman, “ the desk is too low for you ; 
we must get a shorter clerk.” The clerk had only thought of one 
remedy ; the statesman thought of two, and Reformers may probably 
be pardoned if they venture to think that the present chamber of the 
Common men is too big, and that a smaller number of members may 
save us the outlay with which we are threatened in the modification of 
the splendid structure by the waters of the Thames. The number of 
members who wish to talk, and whose constituents expect to hear of 
them 'in the columns of the papers, are expected to say something 
which nobody cares to hear, and they say it at length. The modest 
member, who works like a mill-horse without reward in the work of 
the House which cannot be done in words, is taken no note of by his 
constituents. One of the very best members that ever sat in the House 
of the Common men, and whose name never appears in the journals of 
the day, but who sits daily with great industry, knowledge, and patience, 
superintending the work of unopposed Private Legislation, is threatened 
with opposition at the-next election, because his constituents say he has 
done nothing ) whereas the truth is that he has done moie than any 
one member of the House, next to the Speaker and Chairman ; but in 
his case without fee or reward, except the approbation of a good con¬ 
science, and the admiration of his fellow-members. This is the result 
of the incurable vice of talking, and of forgetfulness that the House, 


108 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


except when it is in Committee, ought only to be the arena ot struggles 
for men of the first order of intellectual rank, and if the dozen or twenty 
men of that rank had the debates all to themselves, there would be 
some pleasure in reading, and more in listening. The House is too 
large, and in a future Session, when men will attempt to address large 
constituencies from the floor of the House—when one eye will be kept 
on the Speaker, and the other askance at the hustings, the vice of talk 
will be doubled, and work will not be done. Whenever the question 
of redistribution is raised in full, and not by a side-wind, there will be 
very much to be said in favor of a reduction of the number of the 
House of the Common men by at least two hundred members. 

In a manner, the evening of the 10th current was, indeed, the open¬ 
ing night of the Session in the House of the Common men ; and a con¬ 
siderable number of spectators and listeners gathered to witness, if 
possible, the development, from some quarter or the other, of a policy 
for Ireland. Even when the fortunes, or it may be the misfortunes, 
of an integral part of the empire are the imminent subject, the more 
common-place business of the Legislature must go on ; and so there 
were the usual notices of motions and questions, though not too many 
for the patience of the audience. Amongst the former was one from 
Mr. Cogan which referred to a burst of Protestant zeal from an Irish 
clergyman, the terms of which, as recited, were provocative of cordial 
laughter ; while Mr. Otway promised a practical attempt at the reduc¬ 
tion of the Army Estimates, and Mr. Childers intimated a like dealing 
with those of the Civil Service. An elaborate motion by Mr. Tre¬ 
velyan on purchase in the army stood first for consideration, and in 
postponing it he appeared almost as if he was about to proceed with it. 
However, he confined himself to his text, and deferred the discourse. 
All was then clear for Mr. Maguire, who, having exhausted the primary 
subject of his unworthiness and inability to deal with the subject, set 
about to prove his thesis, that the condition of Ireland should be im¬ 
mediately considered by the House. If the attention and demeanor 
of the House of the Common men were to be taken as a test, it may 
truly be said that the speech was well sustained, the matter duly mar¬ 
shalled, and the illustrations, if sometimes strained, sufficiently apt 
and generally amusing when they were meant to be so. Of course, the 
lion, gentleman was now and then somewhat dramatic, or rather melo¬ 
dramatic ; but, probably, he had in his mind that he was probably to 
be followed by a professor of histrionics, and so adopted a rhetorical 
artifice to anticipate the manner of the rival mover of the amendment. 
Noticeable in this regard was, probably, his effusive prayer for the 
arising of a political wizard, some Prospero, who would solve the Irish 
difficulty, no matter from which of the front benches he came. At this 
Mr. Gladstone laughed and Mr. Chichester Fortescue looked con¬ 
scious. Then a story of an interchange of ideas with an American 
citizen on the social condition of Ireland was well told, the first imita¬ 
tion of the peculiar accent of the American being very successful in 
arousing laughter, though the subsequent carrying on of one side of 
the dialogue in a special vernacular fell rather flat. Again, a descrip¬ 
tion of what would be the feeling of England if the Koman Catholic 
Church was dominant there, and particularly the effect of such a state 
of things on Mr. Newdegate and Mr. Whalley, was smart, though the 
illustration was carried out to an extent somewhat risky for a member 
of that Church. Notable, too, was it that there cropped up every now 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


109 


and then, it may be involuntarily, a particular among the general 
grievances of Ireland,—namely, the non-construction of docks and 
arsenals at Cork. As to his points, in brief they were these :—Ireland 
just now has been deprived of her constitutional liberty, and is held by 
military and police occupation ; any idea of her increased prosperity 
which prevails founded on a comparison of her condition in 1851 and 
1867 must disappear when the comparison is made with 1859 ; and 
there was disaffection amongst the greatest number of the population, 
while the well-affected were in despair of any amelioration of their 
country. The Encumbered Estates Court had operated only to change 
one set of Soil-Lord oppressors for another; and, as regarded the land 
question, to security of tenure we must come. AVliat, then, was the 
Government about to do to settle that question, he demanded, and in 
the same breath denounced any idea of “ Commissions” ! The dis¬ 
establishment and disendowment of the Irish Church was distinctly 
asked for, and, besides a system of education founded on a consideration 
of the religious feelings of the majority of the people, and a fair share 
of the national expenditure to be showered on Ireland ! Royal visits 
to Ireland were not despised, though not much relied on, while the 
erection of a royal palace was not objectionable; and, although the 
purchase of Irish railways by Government might be acceptable, that 
must be preceded by measures which would produce a prosperous 
population, in order to get traffic. As to emigration, it would be better 
that no resort should be had to it,—on the system which now rendered 
every expatriated Irishman an implacable enemy to England. With 
a sounding and well-rounded peroration, in the course of which there 
was an adjuration to throw all prejudices, including those as to the 
private rights of individual property, to the winds, he concluded a 
speech which to the end was unquestionably received with great favor 
by the House of the Common men. To him succeeded Mr. Neate, 
with his semi-droll amendment about the bad consequences of imprac¬ 
ticable, extravagant, and impossible resolutions in reference to Ireland, 
which was supported by what may be certainly called an appropriate 
speech. The lion, gentleman readily withdrew it in favor of Lord 
Arthur Clinton, for whom there was a decided call. The artificially 
noble Lord rose, sat down, rose again, and once more sat down ; so that 
Sir Frederick Heygate, who had another amendment, asserting the 
necessity of inquiry before legislation, struck in and delivered a speech, 
which was so arithmetical that it sounded like the reading of a balance- 
sheet. At length Lord Arthur Clinton got his opportunity, and on 
his rising, and ever and anon while he spoke, was most kindly cheered, 
j-jg went on glibly enough, with the assistance of a suspiciously thick 
bundle of papers in his hand, to pronounce an expansion of his expan¬ 
sive resolution. He was at least plain in advice to the House of the 
Common men to support the Government if they attempted to solve 
the Irish problem. The time which it was desnable to fill up befoie 
the Minister for Ireland rose was occupied with unction by Mi. 
O’Beirne The advent of Lord Mayo of course re-peopled the empty 
House and the artificially noble Lord went at once into the defensive 
part of his subject. In the outset he put several points effectively 
enough, as when he showed that the disaffection and disloyalty unde¬ 
niably existing amongst the Irish at home and in Ameiica, did not 
exist in Australia and Canada. It was with something like spirit that 
he combated the assertion that Ireland was governed by England after 


110 THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 

the manner of a foreign despotic Power, and also the dangeious dogma 
that the Irish people had been dispossessed of the land by confiscation; 
hut when he came to deal with the denial of any sensible improvement 
in the condition of Ireland he became severely statistical on increased 
cattle, bank deposits, &c., and was curiously exact in guaging pros¬ 
perity by the consumption of spirits. The mode in which he sought to 
argue away the several plans relating to land tenure ol Mr. Bright, 
Mr. Mill, and Sir John Gray, seemed to be felt as rather ponderous. 
All this time, the suggestion of his speech was, that he was leading up 
to an argument that very little or nothing was required to be done for 
Ireland. Possibly the evident failure of his voice induced him to forego 
some further preliminary elaboration ; and as he began to talk of 
governing Ireland impartially, there was hope that he was approaching 
the pith of the matter. Still, however, under manifest physical diffi¬ 
culty he continued to hover round and about the question. At length 
it came out that he proposed to introduce measures providing for 
tenants’ compensation ; for improving the system of leases by limited 
owners ; and to encourage written contracts in the letting of land. 
There was a cheer at each of these propositions, but not the slightest 
rousing of the House of the Common men out of the quiet and patient 
attention which had characterized it hitherto. An announcement that 
there was to be a further solemn inquiry into the whole state of the 
relations between Soil-Lord and tenant, brought out what sounded very 
like a contemptuous laugh. With something like definiteness, he said 
that he would attempt to deal with railways before Easter. As to 
general education, that was being ground through the mill of a Com¬ 
mission. Out of a cloud of circumlocution, at last there came a state¬ 
ment that there is to be permitted the erection of a Roman Catholic 
University,—that is, a Charter is to be granted to such an institution ! 
Without referring to the piling up of grounds for such a course, it may 
suffice to say that the question of the Irish Church is relegated to next 
Session, pending the inquiry now carried on by a Commission. So 
much as has been thus generally stated, and no more, was the actual 
result of over three hours’ Parliamentary parturition. 

Mr. Maguire, in moving that the House should resolve itself into a 
committee to consider the state and circumstances of Ireland, reviewed 
the whole condition of the country, remarked on the wide-spread dis¬ 
affection which existed, and the tardy legislative concessions which had 
invariably been made by Parliament through fear, not from generosity. 
As to the land question, the great evil was the want of security of 
tenure; and a Bill, to be satisfactory now, must, in addition to giving 
full security for the future, protect from “rapacity and caprice” im¬ 
provements made by tenant-farmers upon their farms. He denied the 
loyalty attributed to these farmers by Lord Mayo ; and denounced the 
system by which London companies held land in Ireland. Next, he 
demanded to know, “ without evasion, shuffling, or dodging” (all these 
phrases used in a Parliamentary sense), what Government intended to 
do with the Irish Church. Another Commission would not do : they 
had already had enough of them. Mr. Maguire must have caused 
some amusement when he pictured Mr. Whalley, and Mr. Newdegate 
holding high office in some Fenian Brotherhood, were it the case that 
in England the Roman Catholics received all the endowments, and 
Archbishop Manning dwelt in pomp in Lambeth Palace. In conclusion, 
he strongly condemned the proposal to pay the Catholic priests, “ be- 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


Ill 


lieving that the moment they received the pay of the State they would 
he converted into spies or stipendiaries.” He thought the suggestion 
to purchase the Irish railways was worthy of consideration. Very 
naturally, Lord Mayo took a much more favorable view of the present 
state of Ireland than did Mr. Maguire. The proposals which he made 
in the name of the Government were to introduce a Land Bill similar 
to that which he had introduced last year, believing that it would 
provide an easy method of compensation for improvements, and would 
authorize loans for improvements by the tenants, in the same man¬ 
ner as loans were now made to the Soil-Lords. Still, his lordship 
considered more information was wanted, and for this purpose a Com¬ 
mission would be issued to inquire into the relations of Soil-Lord and 
tenant. The Reform Bill for Ireland was promised to be introduced 
on the 16tli or 19tli current; and, before Easter, it w T as proposed to 
bring in a Bill rendering the “ working of railways in Ireland more 
“efficient”—their purchase is not hinted at. The question of education 
was already under the consideration of a royal Commission. The next 
great proposal of Government is to grant a Charter to a Roman Catholic 
University, with a Senate, consisting of a Chancellor and Vice-Chan¬ 
cellor, four Prelates nominated by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and 
six elected laymen. Parliament is to be asked to pay for the building, 
the officers and professors, and probably the endowment of some Uni¬ 
versity Scholarship. As to the Irish Church, nothing will be done with 
it till the present Commission gives in its report; and even then 
nothing seems to be contemplated, as Lord Mayo thinks it could not 
be overthrown without a fierce and protracted struggle, and if it were 
to fall it would “inflict incalculable injury on the country.” The 
debate was then adjourned to the following Thursday, on the motion 
of Mr. Horsman; and, in answer to Mr. Gladstone, Lord Mayo said 
Government intended to oppose both the motion of Mr. Maguire and 
the amendment of Sir F. Heygate. 

Having thus afforded you proof of some of the attention which I have 
given to the commencement of the Irish debate and to your Government 
programme, I must now hasten to observe that Ireland found on the 
evening of the 10th current in the lion, member for Cork a faithful and 
eloquent representative of her wrongs. With a characteristic Celtic 
warmth,—with generous but not extravagant energy,—he drew a pic¬ 
ture of this hapless country, which if seen by the British people at a 
distance—along the banks of the Vistula say, or under the sway of the 
Ottoman Turk—would fill Tory as w r ell as Liberal minds with pity, 
indignation, and a determined demand for Justice. He described a por¬ 
tion of the British islands—an integral part of that which is called by 
a hundred colonial cities the “ Mother Country”—swarming with 
soldiers,—trained mankillers,—and covered with garrisons. Some 
25,000 soldiers and 13,000 police, drilled and armed with the deadliest 
weapons of modern times, hold her like a conquered dependency ; ships 
of war patrol all her seas, gun-boats anchor on her quiet and lovely 
rivers ; and the palladium of individual liberty, the Habeas Corpus, is 
suspended ; so that the word of a paid spy, the suspicion of a constable, 
or the oath of a proved perjurer is good against the liberty of any 
marked man. Mr. Maguire spoke of a land upon which adversity is 
settling like a black cloud—the crops falling short, the peasants flying 
from starvation at home to take their bitter memories with them across 
the Atlantic. He portrayed a remaining population into whose 


112 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


mental constitutions despair is entering—despair of any justice from 
a caste of Protestant Soil-Lords—of any cure, except, probably, by 
bloody remedies. Speaking always with facts and figures to support 
liis earnest complaints, lie pointed to a part of her Majesty’s dominions 
where, against every principle of moral right, the Church of the small 
minority possesses all the ecclesiastical endowments ; a case not less 
gross and intolerable, he said, than if Archbishop Manning flaunted 
the pomp of Rome in the face of the Protestant millions of England, 
with the tithes to pay for it, or, on the strength of the handful of Ro¬ 
man Catholics among us, went in procession to offer Mass in St. Paul’s. 
In contrast with this fat Church of the small minority, pampered upon 
revenues sequestrated from Catholics, the Catholics maintain their own 
Church by the pence of the “ boys and, while they ask to be delivered 
from the insult and brand of an alien Establishment, they not only do 
not ask, but refuse endowment. The land, rack-rented by absen¬ 
tee Soil-Lords, worked by tenants who have no security for investments 
but their Soil-Lord’s good pleasure, cries in vain for laws which will 
give back confidence to the husbandman, and tempt from the banks 
their timid stores of gold. In the face of the atrocious violation of 
morality perpetrated under cover of the law, and in its sacred name, 
two-thirds of the population which live by the soil refuse to believe in 
any future. Keenly they note the machinations of Fenianism, and 
turn to America with a perilous air of hope. A land with fruitful 
mothers and a failing population, with a rich soil and empty granaries, 
with nine-tenths of its people Catholics and its revenues escheated to 
the Protestant one-tenth—a land with millions living upon their patches 
of ground, which they love beyond even other Celtic races—is lying at 
the caprice of proprietors, whom the law will help with horse, foot, and 
dragoons to drive men and women, old and young, into the workhouse 
or the midnight-drill party. Mr. Maguire’s American friend, he told 
us, did not ill condense the feeling which such a picture must cause in 
any civilized mind, when he said, “ What! no leases—no security for 
improvements ! Men and women bought and sold with the estates ! 
Estates racked by London companies and absentee noblemen ! And 
the thing goes on, and you are not quite sure whether you will wipe 
this incubus Church from off the face of the island ; and whether you 
care to save four million people from the absolute necessity of revolu¬ 
tion !” And he might have continued,—“ Has the organ of Conscien¬ 
tiousness disappeared from British Brains ? Is the sense of Justice 
dead in British statesmen ?” With Irish shrewdness the ardent speaker 
went on to deprecate all delay and compromise. Let us have no 
Commission, he said, to examine into that which everybody knows ; we 
do not ask whether a dean has too much or too little, or whether a 
bishop is or is not starving on five thousand a year. We demand to 
be freed from a Church which is the badge of our humiliation and 
historic suffering. Don’t plaster our wounds with Royal visits, nor, 
when we ask for land laws, give us Emigration Commissioners ! Dis¬ 
establish and disendow this ecclesiastical tyranny, and bestow the 
funds on the destitute. Let the Protestants who are rich maintain 
their own Church, as the poor Catholics do, and let the Irish tenant 
be certain that, if he puts his gold honestly into the soil he can get it 
out again. Let this be done, the advocate of Ireland urged with 
eloquent energy of conviction, and you need not patrol our island with 
ships-of-war, nor try to silence her with the shadow of the gallows. 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


113 


Justice and British goodwill may keep lier from the frenzy of despair; 
commission and solemn shams, guns and gallows, will not do it. The 
Member for Cork bade the British public choose between prompt equity 
towards Ireland or something worse than the worst yet seen in this 
difficulty and disgrace to Britain. Your Irish Secretary, Lord Mayo, 
after stating that the Irish in Australia were not active Fenians, 
confessed that the lower classes in Ireland largely sympathized with 
Fenianism. He painted the state of Ireland, however, in rosy colors, 
which were cleverly laid on, but failed to cover the gloomy canvas. 
He tried to comfort the Irish Rachel “Weeping in Rama” with a 
biographical sketch of those who actively rule the country. He calmly 
denied that there was any great decay or dissatisfaction, all things 
considered. He consoled the Nation for Fenianism by ample statistics, 
and, instead of giving a direct reply to the statements of Mr. Maguire, 
he presented the House of the Common men with a carefully compiled 
report upon agricultural progress. If there was no Justice in Ireland, 
at least there were splendid roads ; and, if Habeas Corpus was suspen¬ 
ded, railway works were not. Also, the Irish were loyal enough to 
hold Irish South-Western stock, and consumed much beer and whisky. 
After these and other encouraging but rather irr ele vant'par ticular s, the 
Irish Secretary stated the Government view of panaceas for Ireland. 
One might wonder why any panaceas should be needed at all, things 
being so completely satisfactory. But yielding to the general feeling, 
rather than to any especial necessity for Irish legislation, the Minister 
had a new policy for this happy and prosperous country. And this 
was it : after a tedious speech on the Land Question, which wore out 
the curiosity of the most active members of the House of Common 
men, Lord Mayo offered to introduce, almost immediately, a Bill, like 
his former one, upon Tenant Compensation, and to put into it pro- 
visions for written contracts instead of parole agreements. He an¬ 
nounced a Commission of “ Enquiry” into the relations of Soil-Lord 
and tenant. He promised an Irish Reform Bill, and assistance to 
Irish Railways ; as for Education, he spoke of efforts to set it straight 
by another Commission, and proposed to give a Charter to the Catholic 
University. Last of all he spoke of the Irish Church; and, fairly 
summarized, his words were to this effect, that, as a Commission was 
sitting to inquire into the whole subject, it would be unwise to adopt 
any decided legislation until the business of the Commission had termi¬ 
nated and the report had been presented. The public will still miss 
as the House of the Common men evidently did—an answer to the 
crying question of the day. In what spirit, and with what intention, 
does the Government approach that most urgent task the settlement 
of the Church problem ? The first night of the great Irish debate 
leaves this momentous topic involved in the most tantalizing if not a 
hazardous mystery. 

Lord Mayo would have done well had he begun within the second 
half of his late oration. In the first place, the whole speech was 
painfully long : three hours’ talking on a well-tlireslied subject is in 
itself a new Irish grievance. But the after part of the speech was so 
much better than the earlier part, that I can only suppose that Loid 
Mayo’s oratory, like a new cask of ale, runs off somewhat muddy 
at the first. The members of the House of the Common men had a 
long preamble of statistics, likely enough to mislead; and then, to 
take the unpleasant taste of such stuff out of their mouths, they had 


114 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


a short statement of some sensible concessions, the utterance of some 
excellent sentiment, and a plausible apology for a postponement of 
action. I do not wish to treat the public as Lord Mayo treated the 
unfortunate House of the Common men, and to begin by wearying 
them with his so-called “ factsI prefer to pluck the plumbs out of 
the big pudding,—one-lialf of which is oratorical dough of the most 
indigestible description. The Government will grant a Charter to the 
Roman Catholic University, so that the majority of the Irish people 
will have equality at least in higher education. There will be a new 
Tenant-right Bill, similar to that of last year,—probably better, pro¬ 
bably worse ; for Lord Mayo is not very clear. Beyond these two 
facts nothing is to be done. But politicians are having, or will have, 
abundant inquiry: two Commissions, one on the Church, and another 
on primary Education, are already sitting ; and a third is to be issued, 
to inquire into the laws relating to Land. Lord Mayo, however,—and 
here comes some of the most valuable parts of his speech,—let fall 
expressions which, if they mean anything, indicate a great change in 
the old Tory policy of “No surrender.” He said, “ There would not, 
I believe, be any objection to make all Churches equal." That a Tory 
Minister should utter those words is a political event of no small 
significance. The avowal intimates that, at last, Protestant ascend¬ 
ency is to be abolished ; at last the Irish people are to have an end of 
the predominance of the Anglican Church ; at last, the Church of the 
-majority of the people is to be raised to an “ equality,”—the word is 
too good not to be repeated very often,—with the Church of the 
Anglican minority. It is the business of the Liberal party not to let 
the declaration remain a barren phrase at the end of a long speech ; 
it must become the motto of the House of the Common men. It is 
the key-word of the whole ecclesiastical situation. “ Equality of all 
Irish Churches.” Let it be kept before our eyes as the “ one thing 
needful.” Britain must thank the Irish Secretary for uttering the 
words. Readily recognizing what is good in Lord Mayo’s speech, I 
must perforce take exception to the unfortunate exordium. I never 
read such a mass of misleading statistics. The Irish Secretary declares 
> that Fenianism would die out if we could only keep out the American 
element. If so, why not enrol the numerous Irish loyalists as special 
constables and volunteers ? The answer simply is that there are no 
“numerous Irish loyalists” to enrol. He declares that Ireland is 
governed by five Irishmen. Why, the same could have been said in 
the worst days of the detested ascendency ; it was Irish judges and 
magistrates who administered the penal iaws, and Irish yeomen and 
police who executed them. But, then, they were Irishmen who were 
Anglican in religion and by descent. What is the curse of Ireland and 
the cause of its discontent ? The ascendency of one Sect and the 
depression of the creed of the majority. And yet Lord Mayo points to 
five Protestants at the head of the Government as a proof that Roman 
Catholic Ireland ought to be content. He might as well have said 
that the majority of the Irish Protestant bishops and clergy of the 
Establishment are Irish, to show how very happy the Roman Catholics 
must be since they are plundered by their own countrymen. Lord 
Mayo knows as well I do that the fact of his being an Irishman does 
not give the slightest satisfaction to the majority of the Irish people, 
and that they would much prefer an English Liberal in his place! 
“ Then, the local magistrates are Irish to a man,”—yes, and he might 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


115 


have added, “ Orangemen almost to a man,”—Protestants, certainly, 
and, as a rule, steeped in stupid bigotry to the lips. “ The paid magis¬ 
trates are Irish,”—but the majority are Protestants. “ In every Town 
you find a municipality elected on a wide Franchise,”—but to counter¬ 
balance it, in every County you find a nominee Grand Jury, nearly all 
Protestants and Tories, allowed to vote away as they like, the County rates 
paid exclusively by tenants,—that is, almost entirely by Eoman Catho¬ 
lics. “ The Poor-law system,” adds Lord Mayo, “is managed by elected 
Guardians,”—yes, but about one-tliird of each Board is composed of 
Protestant magistrates who are ex-officio members. Next come columns 
of statistics,—But what would a statesman say to proofs of agricultural 
progress which entirely omit the annual value of crops—the one de¬ 
cisive test—-which omit the amount or value of produce per acre, and 
which show as their best results, that since 1849,—a year when the 
famine had hardly ceased to act,—the total number of cultivated acres 
has not increased? Since 1841, no doubt, live stock has increased, 
simply because tillage has decreased. If, however, Ireland progresses 
in this way her people may show in twenty-seven more years a mag¬ 
nificent increase of stock, but a decrease of three millions in population, 
and a decrease in the total annual value of Irish produce. Ireland 
taken as a whole would make a very good cattle run and sheep farm; 
statesmen should only have to clear out the surplus population, leaving 
herdsmen and dairymaids enough ; and then the Lord Mayo of the 
next generation could show that, since there was a greater display of 
live stock, the condition of the island had decidedly improved. But 
the crowning glory of Lord Mayo’s figures comes in the facts that the 
Soil-Lords get more rents,—to spend in London and abroad,—and that 
the tenants drink more whisky ! Admirable proofs of real progress ! 
Yet obstinate people assert that the Roman Catholics in Ireland are 
discontented and depressed;—How can they be so when they have five 
Protestants at the Castle to rule them, when the Protestant Soil-Lords 
extort every year more and more rent, and when they go oftener than 
ever to the whisky-bottle to drown their cares ? With such consola¬ 
tions,—Why should they mind the steady decrease of the population, 
the steady decrease in the total annual value of Irish products, the 
steady decrease in tillage,—the steady decrease of produce per acre, the 
steady decrease of inhabited houses,—the steady decrease of loyalty, the 
steady decrease of trust in Parliamentary measures of redress ? But 
the Irish are now to have Equality,—How, then, is it to be carried out ? 
That is the question. Lord Mayo decides against total disendowment, 
or, as he calls it, “ confiscation he will not have “leveling down.” 
He, therefore, aims at what is rather loosely, though idiomatically, 
called “leveling up;” that is, I suppose, Acts of Parliament are to 
put all Churches on a level, by elevating those which are depressed. 
Now, if this means that the Anglican Irish Church is to remain intact, 
and that the Presbyterian and the Roman Catholic bodies are to receive 
from the State equivalent endowments, the idea is simply insane ; it 
would necessitate a grant of at least£600,000 a-year to the Presbyterians 
in Ireland, and of at least £8,500,000 a-year to the Roman Catholics— 
all to be paid by that much-enduring tax-payer, John Bull. That is, 
of course, impossible; no member in his senses would propose such 
a plan. Nevertheless, still keeping “Equality” before us as our goal,— 
How is it to be accomplished on any Tory principle, except by a partial 
“ leveling down” of the Anglican Church ?—and Lord Mayo’s lan- 

H 


116 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OP 


guage, if examined, indicates as much : “ The question must be dealt 
with in a different spirit from that which advocates entire abolition.” 
“ The Protestant Church, I believe, is not at all adverse to an alteration 
of their position.” He also intimated that the present Commission 
would inquire whether the Church Revenues “ are, or are not, sufficient, 
or more than sufficient, for their objects.” When Reformers couple with 
these declarations the denunciation of the grant to the Presbyterians 
as “ miserable,” and the policy of equivalent endowment indicated in 
the proposed grant to the Catholic University, they can pretty fairly 
anticipate the Tory ideas. In the first place, Protestant ascendency is 
doomed. We are to have no more of the venerable rubbish about the 
duty of the State to supply Ireland, as the well-paid Bishop of Ossory 
says, “ with pure ritual and Scriptural truth we are to have the 
State now offering to recognize and endow the Church of the Catholic 
majority and the secondary Protestant Church. But while the Liberal 
party may eagerly accept the principle of “ equality” set forth by Lord 
Mayo, and profess readiness to hear his plan of equivalent endowment, 
it must in the interest of Irish Reform add, that the British taxpayer 
will be excessively reluctant to pay towards the religious expenses of 
any Irish Sect. If the Regium Donum is not sufficient, it should he 
supplemented from Irish, not from Imperial, funds. If the Roman 
Catholic Church is to he endowed, no additional burthen, must be laid 
on the British taxpayer—now little better than an overladen Abyssinian 
mule. I do not say that I accept the new Tory principle of general 
endowment—that is a question which remains to be settled after a care¬ 
ful survey of the whole political situation—but it will prove a hard 
task to obtain a general endowment out of British taxes. Without 
anticipating my differences with your present Ministry, I may take 
note of the common platform on which all parties now stand. “ Equa¬ 
lity of all Irish Churches and Sects” is the admitted end and aim of 
future Irish legislation. The Liberal party long since proclaimed it: 
Mr. Bright’s plan of partial disendowment, leaving a million to each 
of the three Churches, is based on it; all schemes of redistribution—• 
Lord Russell’s, Mr. Herbert Stack’s, Mr. Arnold's, and Mr. De 
Yere’s —rely on it; and now a Tory Ministry has written the same 
motto on the flag that waves over the Treasury Bench. Here, then, 
is something like progress distinctly marked. 

The Ministerial programme with respect to Ireland, as announced 
by Lord Mayo— on the evening of the 10th current—is very much what 
was expected. He promises to introduce, I suppose with considerable 
modifications, his Land Improvement Bill of last session, and another 
for extending the powers of limited owners. A measure for the better 
working of the Irish railways is also promised. The resource of a 
Royal Commission, of course, never fails you and your colleagues. 
Another Commission of Inquiry into the land question is to be pro¬ 
posed. But the most specific announcement of Lord Mayo is the grant 
of a Charter to the Catholic University, with a Parliamentary provision 
for “ the expenses of the building, and the officers and professors, and 
probably, Parliament will not feel indisposed to endow certain Uni¬ 
versity Scholarships.” Here, then, the Nation has the redemption of 
your promise to The O’Donoghue. The motive of this concession is not 
concealed. It is obviously to save Trinity College. After this boon 
to the Roman Catholics, it is hoped that, on the question of the Irish 
Church, the policy of delay may be acquiesced in. You are not in 



POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


117 


favor of “any immediate action” with respect to the Establishment. 
You propose waiting for the report of the Commission, and until the 
assembling of the new Parliament. On this point you are evidently 
ready to join battle, and are preparing for a desperate resistance. “ I 
do not believe,” said Lord Mayo, “ that the Irish Church could be 
overthrown without a fierce and protracted struggle, and, if it were to 
fall, it would inflict incalculable injury on the country.” With regard 
to the Establishment, then, you mean “ No Surrender!” The Oppo¬ 
sition are not likely to acquiesce tamely in this policy. If Ireland is 
not to he reformed, her condition is now, at all events, to he thoroughly 
talked about. The Irish Reform Bill is to be introduced, which will, 
at least, have the advantage of bringing the attention of the House of 
the Common men to the practical details of legislation; instead of per¬ 
mitting Members to lose themselves in a maze of declaration and 
rhetoric about all things in general and about nothing in particular. 
It is not at all to be wondered at that a Tory Ministry, even with a chief 
like you who is supposed to be utterly free from scruples and prejudices, 
should endeavor to temporize with the desire for Irish Reforms. You 
cannot induce your Irish supporters to consent to the measures really 
demanded by public opinion in Britain. There is no cause to suppose 
that the Tories in England and Scotland are much attached to the 
Irish branch of the Establishment, or that they at all, approve of a 
system of land tenure which, contrary to what prevails in these countries, 
affords no compensation at common law for improvements that the ten¬ 
ant may have made out of his own pocket, and that may have directly 
added to the value of the Soil-Lord’s property. There is no cause to 
suppose that the violent and intemperate party spirit which once 
divided Great Britain into two distinct parties, distrusting and hating 
each other, now exists with anything like its ancient bitterness. The 
virus has lost much of its former strength. It is now becoming com¬ 
paratively innoxious. Since the repeal of the Corn Laws and the 
adoption "of the principle of unlimited competition even by the Pro¬ 
tectionist leaders themselves, there has been little real difference 
between the moderate and sensible men who compose the majority of 
both parties. Two years ago, indeed, when the Reform Bill of the 
late Government was introduced, it seemed for a moment that the 
country gentlemen, who cheered so frantically Mr. Lowe’s denuncia¬ 
tions of the proposed reduction of the Borough Franchise from ten to 
seven pounds, as a descent to the level plain of Democracy, and who 
were so much in love with the Tory statesmanship of Sir Hugh Cairns 
in denying that even personal fitness constituted a right to "vote, weie 
prepared to take up their former ground of stubborn lesistance to all 
legislation in accordance with the spirit of the age. A few months’ 
enjoyment of the “ honors and emoluments,” however, changed all 
this. The great concession of last Session proved that it was useless 
in England "to act on the old lines of unbending resistance ; and the 
English Tories are more indulgent now than they ever were before, to 
their opponents, because, to say the truth, the rank-and-file of the 
party, who receive few personal gratifications in the shape of official 
distinctions, are not-a little ashamed of themselves. They have the 
unpleasant consciousness that they have appeared m a very ridiculous 
light; that their opponents are secretly laughing at them ; and that 
the pleasure of following you, and of being “educated” by you, is not, 
after all, the highest to which a Tory Soil-Lord, devoted to the msti- 


118 THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 

tutions of liis country, might aspire. They are disposed to show 
something of tenderness even to Mr. Bright, who, until last Session, 
was the object of their passionate detestation. The Toryism of Ireland 
has, however, long differed from the Toryism of England. English¬ 
men, whatever may be their differences on certain subjects, may fairly 
be considered united. Irishmen are, however, divided from each other 
by the most positive demarcations. There is nothing in common 
between an Ulster Soil-Lord, returned to Parliament by a dependent 
tenantry, and by the influence of the Orange Lodges—which, whatever 
they may be in the future, have hitherto been convenient and submis¬ 
sive instruments of the aristocracy—and an Uish Catholic Member, 
sent to Parliament in opposition to the territorial influences, and by 
the votes of the Catholic people, under the direction of the priests. A 
great deal has been said of the advantages of conducting Irish affairs, 
by an understanding among the Irish Members, as the business of 
Scotland is transacted by the Scotch Members, who meet and consult 
together, so that the business of legislation in the House is often little 
more than formal. It is very seldom, indeed, that there is a warm 
Scotch debate, like the ordinary style of Irish debates. But the 
cause why Scotch Members can meet together and settle amicably 
among themselves any difference which may arise on legislative 
measures is, that their differences are not generally on principles, but 
only on details which can admit of discussion and of arrangement. All 
Scotchmen are pre-eminently proud of being Scotchmen, and are de¬ 
voted to the honor and glory of Scotland. They do not care to make 
their country ridiculous in the eyes of Englishmen and Irishmen. 
Though they may disagree on party politics as much as Englishmen 
can differ, there is no intense bitterness ; and their common country 
forms a powerful bond of union. But there is no such powerful bond 
of union among the Irish Members. They are not so proud of uniting 
together as Irishmen, as of being Irish Tories, devoted to the Protestant 
Establishment; and Catholic Members are bent on making the supposed 
interests of their religion the first consideration in all their politics. 
The Irish Liberal Protestant element, which may be considered im¬ 
partial, is virtually unrepresented in the House of the Common men ; 
and there is, probably, no representation of any minority so desirable 
as that of the intelligent and liberal classes in Ireland, neither devoted 
to the Established Church, nor to the exclusive interests of the Papacy. 
The influence of such an independent Liberal party would be media¬ 
torial and healing. No two sections of the House of the Common men 
differ so much as the Irish Tory Members and the Irish Roman Ca¬ 
tholic Members. The fact of them being all Irishmen seems to intensify 
their differences rather than to soften their asperities. The Irish Tory 
Member acknowledges that he is sent to the House of the Common men 
to speak for a small and privileged class of his countrymen, who are 
now, indeed, on the defensive ; but who, having long enjoyed an ex¬ 
clusive ascendency, both political and religious, cannot bear to accept 
a position of mere equality. Many of them have to the Liberal Catholic 
representatives who sit opposite to them the feelings now entertained 
by the Southern planters to their emancipated slaves. So long as the 
Established Church remains as it is, the symbol of an ascendency which 
has become utterly untenable and is virtually given up, Reformers must 
expect those strong class prejudices to continue. It does not follow 
that they will immediately abate after this great Reform has been 


POLITICAL .JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


119 


accomplished. It is certain, however, that, so long as this great 
grievance remains as it is, the agitation which is raging around it, will 
be kept alive, and that the two classes will continue embittered against 
each other. The Irish Tory, devoted to his Church, regards other 
classes of Irishmen who desire to remove it with an animosity which 
no Englishmen can feel towards other Englishmen, and no Scotchmen to 
other Scotchmen. I believe, therefore, that it is a really Liberal policy 
at once, to set about disestablishing an institution which does not unite 
Irishmen, but which, the longer it remains, will continue to divide 
them. That we are now in the third year of the suspension of the 
Habeas Corpus Act, is a sufficient cause for setting at once to grapple 
with an evil which, out of Ireland is all but universally admitted and 
deplored. The great objection to what is called an Irish nationality is, 
that there is, and can be, no such thing, as representing what surely a 
nationality ought to do—the unity of the people. There could, for 
instance, be no Irish Parliament in which Col. Stuart Knox and The 
O’Donoghue could amicably sit together as representing differing sec¬ 
tions of their countrymen. When the Established Church has been 
really brought to a level with the other Churches in Ireland, and some 
reform in the land tenure has been effected, such as nearly all people 
acknowledge to be desirable, except the Irish Tories, who look upon 
the present state of things as the best for the maintenance of their 
political supremacy, politicians may hope that the good intentions of 
British statesmen with respect to this country will receive fair play; 
and that the British Parliament, in which all classes of Irishmen may 
be adequately represented, will have a far more beneficial influence on 
Ireland than a so-called National Parliament could have, in which the 
two irreconcilable sections would stand in close juxtaposition, and be 
ready to wage an interminable war. But to accomplish this desirable 
result, the temporizing policy of which Lord Mayo was the official 
organ, will have to be at once abandoned. It is very unfortunate that 
a Government which has to consult the Ulster Tory Brigade is called 
upon, in order to remain in office, to adopt measures bitterly opposed 
to the prejudices of this, the most extreme section of its followers. This 
embarrassment was plainly visible in Lord Mayo’s speech on the even¬ 
ing of the 10th current, and in the proposals he had to make. 

Reformers now know what the intentions of the Tories are respecting 
the condition of Ireland. The Earl of Mayo, the Secretary of State for 
Ireland, has favored the House of the Common men and the Nation with 
the outline of the remedial measures which your Government proposes 
to apply to Ireland, for the removal of the widespread disaffection and 
popular misery which have made this glorious but unhappy country a 
standing scandal and peril to England,—a marvel and an object of com¬ 
passion to the rest of the civilized world. These remedial .measures 
are of the paltriest description. In amount they are infinitesimally 
small, and to a certain extent based upon the homoeopathic theory, of 
medicine, which assumes that “like cures like,” or that the drugs which 
produce symptoms similar to the disease are the proper ones to be 
employed for its cure. Then, those paltry and absurd remedies are to be 
applied only to the outside, or surface, of the patient. The Earl of Mayo, 
yourself, and your fellow-quacks have come, or pretend you have come, 
to the conclusion that the ailments of Ireland are only skin-deep, and 
that superficial, or topical, treatment is all that she requires. There¬ 
fore, for the virulent cancer of Soil-Lordism, that is rapidly eating its 


120 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


way to the heart of the Nation, you propose a plaster of written leases. 
For the removal of the deep disaffection from the Irish brain, you 
propose to tickle the political epidermis of the people by a Franchise 
Bill, such as that passed for England last year ; and for the banish¬ 
ment of the demon of pious discord, it is proposed to found and endow 
another sectarian university. This last proposal it is that smacks of 
the homoeopathic system of medicine. It is a prescription for the 
removal of pious delirium tremens , by giving the Irish “ a hair of the 
dog that bit them.” The Protestants have Trinity College, Dublin, 
for the inculcation of theological bigotry, and political narrow-minded¬ 
ness and intolerance,—therefore, let the Roman Catholics have another 
university, exclusively occupied with the education of Roman Catholic 
young men. Now, this proposal, though contemptible as a counter¬ 
active for the evil that now rages, and ravages throughout the veins 
and arteries of the Irish body politic, has an ingredient of equity to 
recommend it to British acceptance, were it not that it is intended to 
carry it into effect by a measure of injustice to other people. The 
Roman Catholics have as good a right to a university of their own as 
the Church of England Protestants ; and, considering the millions upon 
millions of Roman Catholic money that have been pocketed by Pro¬ 
testant Soil-Lords and Protestant Parsons, it would be no more than a 
trifling instalment of the debt due to the plundered and insulted Ca¬ 
tholics if the aforesaid Soil-Lords and Parsons were to build and endow 
a university,—or, indeed, a score of universities,—for the education of 
the Irish Catholic youths. But this is not the way in which it is pro¬ 
posed to defray the expenses of the contemplated university. The 
British Parliament is a Parliament of Soil-Lords, and as the Soil-Lords 
are intimately related to the Protestant Parsons, Parliament is exceed¬ 
ingly careful of the pecuniary interests of these highly-favored and 
privileged parties. Reformers are not, therefore, surprised to learn 
that the Government does not ask or intend to pay the expenses of the 
proposed university out of national property now monopolized by the 
Protestant Church, or out of the pockets of absentee or other Irish 
Soil-owners. Nothing of the kind. The duty of these pampered fa¬ 
vorites of the State is to receive, not to give; to take money from the 
pockets of other people, not to give any out of their own ; to devour, 
and grow fat and insolent upon, the taxes wrung from the straining 
sinews of half-starved peasants and mechanics, not to contribute to the 
support of institutions calculated to ameliorate the social or intellectual 
condition of these peasants or mechanics. Therefore, the Tories pro¬ 
pose, that the working classes of England and Scotland, not the Irish 
Soil-Lords and State Parsons, should be still further taxed—that is, 
robbed—to pay the cost of a university for the Roman Catholics, such 
university being a manifest sop to the terrible Cerberus of Irish dis¬ 
affection. There can be no mistake as to the object of this measure. 
It is intended to conciliate the Roman Catholic priests,—to enlist 
them in the same service as the Protestant Parsons,—to make them 
spiritual policemen for upholding the reign of alien and absentee Soil- 
Lordism, and working-class starvation and disaffection, in Ireland. Yes! 
the working men of the Three Queendoms are to be still further plun¬ 
dered for the advantage of the heartless and rapacious Soil-Lord class, 
whose misgovernment has brought Ireland and the British Empire to 
their present dangerous state, and whose entire energies have been con¬ 
secrated to the maintenance of the working classes of the Three Queen- 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


121 


doms in a state of social and political servitude. Therefore, as a 
matter of course, the working men of England and Scotland will 
cheerfully submit to further fiscal extortion for the safety of Irish Soil- 
Lords and the defence of the regime of the spy, the informer, the gaoler, 
the hangman, the Rent-Claiming exterminator, and the bloated State Par¬ 
son in that favored portion of the British empire, I say “favored,” be¬ 
cause according to the Earl of Mayo, Ireland is exceptionally fortunate. 
Indeed, upon the showing of this great statesman (?) Ireland is a pre¬ 
eminently progressive country ; and of all nations in Europe, the Irish 
have the least cause for political disaffection. The artificially noble 
earl has gone into a long series of statistics, from which he draws the 
conclusion, that within the last century the material wealth of Ireland 
has increased. From this fact, he argues they have no just ground for 
complaint, and that only a few legislative measures, dealing with some 
paltry superficial sores, are required to render the Irish farmers, 
artizans, and shopkeepers as “ loyal” as the Lord Lieutenant himself, 
or as the hundreds of absentee Soil-owners, who draw millions of 
money every year from the industry of Ireland, and expend it in the 
pursuit of pleasure in foreign countries. There is, however, one im¬ 
portant fact which Lord Mayo has overlooked or ignored in the course 
of his argument, but which, unless it be considered and appreciated, will 
prevent Reformers ever getting at the root of Irish disaffection. I now 
refer to the distribution, or the appropriation of the increased material 
wealth to which his lordship triumphantly points. Within the last 
century the produce of the Irish land has increased, say, tenfold. Now, 
this in itself “ is” a highly encouraging fact. But of what use is that 
increase to the poor organisms who till and fertilize the soil, if they 
are not permitted to participate in this prosperity ? If the whole of 
this increased produce flows into the pockets of the privileged sen¬ 
sualists who are empowered by the laws of the British Parliament, and 
the arms of the British people, to plunder the hard-working men and 
women whose toil gives value to the soil, in order that the said privi¬ 
leged sensualists may revel incessantly in all the pleasures which the 
perverted civilization of foreign lands can supply for money,—What 
benefit do their serfs and drudges derive therefrom? In 1846-7, when 
upwards of a million of the Irish people died of famine, Ireland was 
considerably richer than in 1826-7. It is well known that in the time 
of the terrific famine twenty-years ago, enough food to feed the starving 
Irish was exported from the country, to be sold in London, and in other 
markets, the money to go into the pockets of the absentee Soil-owners. 
The Earl of Mayo’s reply to those who attribute Irish disaffection to 
Irish misery is the same,—as if a fat flunkey were to comfort the famish¬ 
ing poor of a country parish by informing them that the income of the 
Archbishop and the interior furnishing of his pious Palace were more 
splendid, ample, and luxurious than they were at any former period. 
Earl Mayo’s development of Ministerial intentions, and the Irish dis¬ 
cussion of which it forms a part, is a melancholy illustiation of the 
imbecility of British Statesmanship, under the existing political dispen¬ 
sation, for the removal of any one of the gigantic iniquities which doom 
the industrious millions to indigence, and allow the unproductive, the 
lazy, and the useless thousands of privileged aristocrats to wallow in 
superfluities. Still, this discussion is not without some advantage. 
For though it does not light up the way out of the Irish difficulty, it 
throws a great deal of light upon the confusion, the feebleness, and the 


122 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


craven selfishness that becloud the brains and paralyze the councils 
of the decaying caste that keeps Ireland in a chronic state of squalid 
misery and sullen disaffection. There has been light enough evolved 
from the speeches made in the course of this debate to make the dark¬ 
ness that envelops the minds of our rulers visible, and to strengthen 
the conviction that from neither the Tories nor the Whigs any sub¬ 
stantial measure of justice for Ireland is to be expected ; and that not 
until the reign of aristocratic ascendency is displaced for that of popu¬ 
lar sovereignty will the Irish people become loyal, or the British empire 
become secure from the subtle treasons and the profound popular 
discontent by which the very foundations of our National greatness are 
being constantly undermined. 

We now know all that we have to expect from your Cabinet,—her 
Majesty’s present advisers,—with respect to this country. After so 
many delays, so much speculation, and a considerable amount of anxiety, 
your Irish Secretary, Lord Mayo, at about midnight of Tuesday, the 
10th current, laid his good things one by one on the table of the House- 
of the Common men. The effect was, it must be confessed, not over¬ 
powering. Some of the new lamps were old ones furbished up for the 
occasion; and there was, probably, but one of them which could be 
regarded by you as Prime Minister, and your colleagues as anjdhing 
more than a plaything adapted, it may be, to amuse the House of the 
Common men, and to while away the busy hours of the Session; but 
never intended nor desired to take effect practically in legislation. Mr. 
Gladstone had long advised the amalgamation, and even the purchase, 
of the Irish railways. On this subject the public mind is made up ; 
and the task of your Cabinet as Ministers with regard to it, is little more 
than perfunctory. Supposing, therefore, the measure which is announced 
to be what the country has been led to expect, it cannot be said that 
the preparation of such a scheme to give more “ efficiency to the work¬ 
ing of the Irish railways” called for any great powers of statesmanship. 
But it is impossible to form any adequate idea of the railway measure 
from the few words uttered describing it; and the value of the Land 
Improvement Bill, which he declares to be similar to what he introduced 
last year, depends on the details, of which the public, as yet, know 
nothing. Lord Mayo’s Bill of last year had the great defect of propos¬ 
ing to give tenants-at-will the power of borrowing money on the estates 
of their Soil-Lords, and this afforded those borrowers no security of tenure 
for any term of years, in order to carry their improvements into effect. 
The money which was nominally lent to the tenants was really to the 
Soil-Lords. It was a questionable boon to both proprietors and tenants. 
Instead of encouraging leases, its effect would have been deterrent; 
and I know that, though you, at the end of the last Session, taunted 
the Liberal party with not supporting the Bill, it was really delayed, 
and finally abandoned, in obedience to the remonstrances of the Irish 
Tory Members, who had the most positive and insurmountable objec¬ 
tions to a plan which seemed almost revolutionary in principle, and yet 
proposed to do nothing to justify so bold and hazardous an innovation. 
I have little doubt that the measure which is to be re-introduced will 
be found considerably improved. It is impossible, however, to avoid 
seeing that the Bill is not seriously proposed; that it will only be 
brought forward to be postponed; that, when the month of August 
arrives, it will be abandoned after having answered its purpose of 
deferring a settlement of a very awkward and difficult question. The 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


128 


Government of which, you are the chief, undertake to legislate on the 
land question, and at the same time advise another Royal Commission. 
The two propositions are partially contradictory; biR the object is the 
same. It is delay. The testing question at the present moment is 
that of the Irish Church. To estimate correctly your Ministerial policy, 
the proposal to grant a Charter to the Catholic University, not only 
with present but prospective endowments, and the unequivocal decla¬ 
ration of Lord Mayo, that the Government are not prepared to deal 
with the Establishment, must be considered together. The Commission 
now inquiring into the distribution of the revenues of the Irish Estab¬ 
lishment was limited to a particular object. It had nothing whatever 
to do with the fundamental question, whether such a Church, repre¬ 
senting a small and sectionable minority, ought to exist in Ireland? 
We w T ant, indeed, no Royal Commission, no inquiry into details to 
try to persuade us that such a Church, after several centuries of 
acknowledged inefficacy, ought to continue. The question does not 
admit of argument. To enter into details at this day on such a subject 
is, in fact, to insult our understandings. Your Government, however, 
affirm that you will, when the Commissioners have made their report, 
not be disinclined to consider how the revenues of the Establishment can 
be better applied for their special purposes. But you will entertain no 
proposal to disestablish this Episcopal Church. Here your Cabinet 
Ministers make your stand. Here you draw out your line of battle. 
Here we have the most complete illustration of the ‘‘really Conserva¬ 
tive policy” which you told the Tory members at your official residence 
on Thursday, the 5th current, your Government would pursue, and of 
the “ Liberal, the truly liberal policy,” from which, three hours later on 
the same afternoon, you informed the House of the Common men, you 
and your colleagues would never swerve. With Lord Mayo the Es¬ 
tablishment is not an injustice which ought to be remedied, a grievance 
to be redressed, or an evil to be abolished. It is a positive good, which 
ought to be chivalrously maintained against all comers. Ireland, it 
seems, could scarcely exist without it: if it were to be destroyed, the 
country would perish with it. After so much circumlocution, and the 
constant artifice of making words to do duty for things, or after, 
according to Lord Russell, saying one thing and meaning another, it 
is some satisfaction to find one of your colleagues speaking from his 
central faculty, and, in unmistakable language, expressing his genuine 
convictions. It is something to be told that, if the Established Church 
jn Ireland is to fall, it will be only after a fierce and piotiacted struggle, 
and that, in the opinion of Lord Mayo and his colleagues, “ its fall 
would inflict incalculable injury on the country.” But why is Lord 
Mayo thus confident and plain-spoken ? He presents us with an ex¬ 
tensive view of endless endowments and concessions to the Roman 
Catholics as an inducement for them to acquiesce in the existence of 
this Irish Establishment, and its favorite and kindred institution, 
Trinity College. The Catholic prelates wanted a Charter for their 
university, and only acquiesced in the bupplemental Charter for the 
Queen’s University as a make-shift. Your present Ministry offer more 
than a Charter. ‘The expenses of the building, the offices, the pro¬ 
fessors, and certain scholarships are all to be provided by the State; 
nor do the good intentions of her Majesty s Government stop here. 
Colleges, as they come into existence, are also to be endowed tor the 
Catholics, in the present; and, in the future, they are to have sub- 


124 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


stantial grounds for being grateful to lier Majesty’s Government, if 
only they will not deal hardly with Trinity College and the Establish¬ 
ment. That which it is hoped will make the Catholics contented with 
a subordinate position,—much endowment,—lias made Lord Mayo 
bold. He says, truly enough, that he does not wish to do any harm 
to Trinity College ; but it is mere mockery to say that, after the pro¬ 
posed Charter and endowment for the Catholic University, the Queen’s 
University and mixed education will remain as they are. The Queen’s 
Colleges in Galway and Cork can scarcely hope to exist side by side 
with endowed colleges of a Catholic University. Hitherto, mixed and 
non-sectarian education has been supported by the State, as an impar¬ 
tial system, adapted to Protestants and Catholics alike. Your Govern¬ 
ment now propose, however, deliberately to set up denominational 
institutions side by side with the Queen’s Colleges. It must soon^ be¬ 
come a question whether both kinds of institutions can be maintained 
out of the public purse. Your proposal through Lord Mayo and your 
other colleagues really brings forward the whole question of endow¬ 
ments. It cannot be shirked. Can it be right thus to pay out of the 
taxation of the country for new denominational institutions when there 
is an institution,—possessing large revenues now utterly misapplied,— 
which might, were the intentions of your Government really honest 
and upright, be altered to answer every object of the Roman Catholics, 
while being really reformed in correspondence with its original cha¬ 
racter, and made “the mother of a University?” The truth is that 
you, Lord Mayo, and your other colleagues,—those among you all who 
have any convictions,—are denominationalists, and your sole object is 
to save richly-endowed denominational institutions of your own faith, 
by proposing to endow other denominational institutions of another 
faith. This is your policy. It remains to be seen whether the Nation 
will acquiesce in it. You tell us, through Sidonia, that the “Age of 
Ruins is passed —Is not the Age of Denominational Endowments by 
the State in a country of different and contradictory religious persua¬ 
sions also fast passing away ? 

The country is really prosperous—a country could scarcely flourish 
under bad institutions—therefore, the Irish Established Church must 
be a good institution, and ought to be maintained. This is the Tory 
syllogism; but, like many other syllogisms, it really proves nothing. 
It all depends upon the premises; and it is the easiest thing in the 
world to bring out any conclusion from a major and a minor judiciously 
chosen. It is now apparent that you will leave Ireland very much as 
you found it. You have been in office for nearly two years, and yet 
your Irish legislation is a blank. This might be justifiable enough if 
you admitted that no legislative reforms were required. But you do no 
such thing. You announced, loudly enough, that you had a brand- 
new policy for Ireland at the beginning of the Session. After we had 
waited very long, that policy was explained by Lord Mayo, and not a 
single one of the measures then shadowed forth will be seriously 
attempted to be made law. We have had two Parliamentary Sessions 
since you, then Chancellor of the Exchequer,—now our Prime Minister, 
declared that you were a regularly qualified State physician, and not a 
quack ; that Ireland was suffering under a severe drain of her popula¬ 
tion, but that you had yourself a styptic which would soon do wonders 
in restoring the interesting patient to health. If this really be the 
policy which you believe to be right,—Why, I ask, has not the styptic 


POLITICAL justice unsheathed, etc. 


125 


been applied ? We have waited two Sessions for your styptic. It has 
not been produced. Now, this looks very much like trifling. The 
truth of it is, that your Government cannot legislate satisfactorily on 
Irish affairs. Your highest ambition is to keep your place, by keeping 
things as they are ; you therefore talk vaguely of your good intentions, 
and indulge in pompous phrases, which, when carefully scrutinized, 
have no meaning. 

The debate on the Irish question on the evening of the 12th did not 
a little towards defining the points at issue, and clearing the ground 
for action. Really striking speeches were delivered by Mr. Horsman, 
Mr. Lowe, and Mr. Mill ; all of them more pointed in style, more forcible, 
and more vivacious, than the harangues of the evening of the 10th. 
The House had something to cheer, to laugh at, to contest; the de¬ 
pressing atmosphere of courteous sleepy inattention, often so marked 
in Parliamentary debates, gave place to brisk, eager, animated interest. 
At the very outset, Mr. Horsman roused his hearers by his descrip¬ 
tion of Lord Mayo’s dubious course. There are two capital subjects of 
State policy inviting, nay more, demanding immediate handling:—What 
does your Government propose to do with them ? Your Church policy 
is one of “ masterly inactivity and your course bearing upon the 
relations of the people to the land is one of procrastination. Inquiries 
without end are to be instituted—indeed, Ireland has been put under 
Commission; but throughout the whole scheme of your Cabinet the 
eye of a microscopic philosopher would look in vain for a principle. 
Lord Mayo had performed an ungrateful task; he had to pretend that 
he was expounding a policy when in reality he had none to expound. 
Upon one point alone was he definite—he announced the intention of 
the Government to grant a Charter to a Roman Catholic university ; 
and, according to Mr. Horsman, that project not only involves the en¬ 
dowment of the Ultramontane party, but it sacrifices the laity to the 
priests, gives direct support to the Papal assault upon mixed education, 
and strives to undo the great work accomplished by Lord Stanley in 
1881. Mr. Horsman only expressed the general feeling when he said 
that Lord Mayo’s exposition had caused great disappointment. . Your 
Government has missed a great opportunity; you might have initiated 
a generous policy, got out of the old ruts, recognized that the diseases 
of Ireland are diseases of the heart, and adopted measures to satisfy the 
real wants of the people—you might have seen that there could be no 
contentment as long as the Irish Church is a favored Church. What, 
said Mr. Horsman, “ is your principle ? Is it still Protestant ascend¬ 
ency, or is it for the principle of religious equality ? This was the 
key-note of the speech. Ireland should be governed m accordance with 
her wishes and feelings, and the crisis demands religious equality, 
certain tenure, and unsectarian education. Nor was the debate with¬ 
out a peculiarly arousing episode in the shape of a duel, or smgie 
combat, between the two philosophers of the House, the great Logician 
and the great Australian. In fulfillment of the floating expectation, 
Mr. Lowe dashed into a sparkling refutation of Mr. Mill s Irish pamp 
let, and the nature of the assailant’s doctrines, uttered with a laughing 
accent, may be inferred from the fact that he threw the Tory squires 
into convulsions of delight, reminding close observers of the ecstasies 
of encouragement bestowed on the same orator s anti-Reform philippics 
of 1866. On the land question, indeed, Mr. Lowe is the philosopher of 
the Tory party; but he rushes to the opposite enthusiasm when he 


126 


the sharp spear and flaming sword of 


speaks of the Church and Education. On these subjects he becomes 
in earnest; the tone of his voice even changes, his elocution is less 
indistinct and more emphatic. With solemn fervor lie denounced the 
policy of giving a Charter to the Homan Catholic University as un¬ 
worthy of a “truly Liberal” Government; as a concession to a 
hierarchy which obeys the behests of a foreign Power; as a bribe to 
gain electioneering influence; as a sacrifice of the laity who have sup¬ 
ported the National Schools and the Queen’s Colleges; as a device to 
serve a momentary exigency. But he fulminated his thunderbolts 
equally against Catholic and Protestant. You, the Government, he 
said, are not going to touch the root of the evil—the Established 
Church ; and, vaunting his plain speech, he declared that Britain 
shall not have broken with an evil past until her people have abolished 
this last iniquitous relic of the bad old days. Holding that the Queen 
and the Parliament are the trustees of the property enjoyed by the 
Irish Church, he roundly declared that it ought to be administered for 
the benefit of the Irish people at large. The tide of opinion, so far as 
it has hitherto flowed, sets steadily towards the establishment of re¬ 
ligious equality, and the further and fuller development of unsectarian 
education. The member for Caine indicated at least his method of 
attaining religious equality by openly raising his hand against all creeds 
alike; summarily settling the troublous Irish Church question by 
leveling every Church at a blow—in Ireland. The philosopher of the 
Liberal party met his antagonist befittingly on both the issues of his 
speech. The passion of the anti-ecclesiast was answered by an im¬ 
pressive calmness. Mr. Mill did not expect the Government to be in 
advance of public opinion, but only abreast of it, and he called for great 
measures to redress great evils. No doubt he declared “ every human 
being” to have made up his mind on the Irish Church, which—within 
certain geographical and statistical limits, is tolerably true ; only it so 
happens that every human being has made up his mind in a sense 
opposite to the conviction of his neighbors; so that for the Govern¬ 
ment to be “ abreast” of public opinion, it ought to be torn with 
conflicting ideas. But, at all events, Mr. Mill was as temperate in his 
language as he was general in the form of his demands. And in vindi¬ 
cating his land projects against his savage aggressor he did not deny 
the good tendency or generous spirit of x>ast Reforms. The discussion 
of the evening of the 12tli, though unaccompanied by the adoption of 
any definite proposition, has been by no means barren of result. Re¬ 
formers must have clearly observed that the extreme views of those 
who, on the one hand, would subvert every existing institution, or, on 
the other, would maintain every existing abuse, find no favor with the 
Imperial Parliament. Moreover, the course of the controversy was 
practically narrowing the questions at issue to a remarkable degree. 
On both sides of the House it was admitted that the position of the 
Established Church in Ireland is the point to which the attention of 
the Legislature must first be devoted. At the present moment any 
measure brought forward with a view to remodelling the ecclesiastical 
condition of Ireland must have been crude and unsatisfactory. Even 
if it were possible, which I doubt, that a perfect measure could now be 
framed, Reformers should deprecate its introduction before further and 
fuller consideration had won for it the assent of public opinion. I wish 
that justice should be done to Ireland, not as the result of a party 
victory, but as the product of the deliberate judgment of the British 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


127 


people. This being so, I find no fault either with the Government or 
the Opposition, because, as yet, neither declines to pledge itself to any 
specific course with respect to the Irish Church. The principle for 
which I have contended throughout,—that of absolute political equality 
between rival creeds,—has made good progress throughout the pre¬ 
liminary inquiry, and has received the assent of influential speakers 
belonging to many different schools of politics. What Eeformers desire 
now is, that this great principle should receive the distinct and final 
recognition of the party of progress. 

Saturday is, during the Parliamentary season, generally a day for 
Cabinet Councils. The debates of the week are over. The Ministers 
meet together to take stock, to count their losses and gains, and to 
decide on their course for at least the ensuing week. Last Saturday, 
then, I suppose, that you, as our Prime Minister, met your colleagues, 
after a few days of active political warfare. Your faces must have 
been of the blankest; the party could scarcely have been very pleasant. 
“ The mountebank,” who, according to Addison and Mr. Bright, had 
attempted in Buckinghamshire or elsewhere to sell pills as an unfail¬ 
ing remedy against an earthquake, could not, though his countenance 
might be remarkable for stolidity, when he did not wish it to be ex¬ 
pressive, have been very confident and radiant when he met his con¬ 
federates in the caravan, or in a private room of the ale-house in the 
village, and had to admit that blandishments, jokes, and confident 
assertions had been unavailing. Even the simple country people 
would not buy-the pills ; they might believe in the earthquake, but not 
in the medicine, nor in the doctor, whom they had seen, probably, in 
another costume, undertaking to swallow quart pots, and even stand¬ 
ing on a pole for a considerable time, with his head downwards, much 
to the awe of the little boys. Though he now appears as the President 
of the College of Physicians, intelligent people know that he is not a 
regular practitioner; that it is easy enough to detect the airs of the 
traveling showman ; that there is something of sawdust, of the carpet, 
of the spring-board, of balancing and of posturing about their old 
friend. He now wears robes of dignity, and is surrounded by an im¬ 
posing retinue of questioning and unquestioning pupils. But the old 
habits cannot be altogether thrown aside : what he was fitted for by 
Nature and by constant practice he is compelled to be to the end. Bel- 
phegor , in the third act of the drama, when he appears as a French 
marquis, has the powerfully-developed muscles of the salthnbanque , and 
astonishes the fine company by bursting forth, after the fashion of the 
tumbler, “Come round; come round! Just a-going to begin!” I 
might say, according to another illustration, that the performance in 
the first-class theater, and before a numerous and fashionable audience, 
has begun. The people, however, don’t like it. The hissing is loud 
and general; and the elaborate entertainment is already pronounced to 
be an imposition. The public are demanding back their money, and 
threatening indignantly to terminate that which was represented in the 
bills to be a great legitimate Irish play, and is found to be a low farce, 
with much tumbling and clowning. Lord Mayo was put forth with a 
loud flourish of trumpets and beating of drums to announce a policy. 
It was to be such a policy. For weeks the people had been somewhat 
impatiently kept waiting. We had a new Prime Minister who had 
been praised as a great original genius as a sort ol liteiaiy divinity, 
before whom, the whole literary class were exhorted to fall down and 


128 THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 

worship, and to teach the profane world to worship, There was some¬ 
thing very degrading to the literary profession in such appeals. They 
were not justified by anything you had done either in the world of 
letters or in the world of statesmanship. Even during last Session, 
which has been represented as so satisfactory to you, your triumph was 
purely personal. It was gained at an almost incredible and quite an 
unprecedental sacrifice. Those who interpret rightly the events of 
last Session will certainly never wish to see such another. It was 
calculated to bring all statesmanship into disrepute ; it was politically 
most demoralizing ; it was a surrender of the functions of the Cabinet 
to any haphazard majority in the House of the Common men. No 
person to whom the credit of Parliament and the honor of our public 
men are dear would desire to see the proceedings of last Session re¬ 
peated. Are they going to be repeated ? This is what every independent 
Reformer, and every independent Member of Parliament, are asking. 
Your Irish policy is even more completely a failure now than the thirteen 
Reform resolutions and the Reform Bill No. 1 were at the beginning of last 
Session. The position of your Government, with regard to the great Irish 
question, is just what it was on the Reform question. But the dual 
vote, the six pound rating Franchise, and the fancy Franchise were not so 
strongly condemned last March as the proposition to establish a new 
denominational university in Ireland, and the refusal to deal with the 
Irish Church Establishment are this March. Both what Lord Mayo 
and his colleagues declared themselves ready to do, and what they as 
unequivocally refused to do, are equally out of harmony with the 
feeling of the House of the Common men, as expressed by its ablest 
and most influential representatives and the leading organs of public 
opinion. Such unanimity has seldom before been displayed. The 
discussion of Thursday and Friday night was unusually brilliant. Had 
the Ministerial iiolicy been at all defensible, the debate might have 
become, as was feared, discursive and useless. As it is, however, the 
speeches have been essentially practical. The Ministerial proposals, 
before they are formally introduced, are repudiated by the House of 
the Common men and the Nation. The majority of the members, 
and all the intelligent and liberal classes out of doors, seem agreed 
in declaring that religious equality must be produced. They will not, 
however, have this result brought about by indiscriminate or universal 
endowment. The policy I have so long advocated is evidently accepted 
by the Legislature and the people. It is now plain enough that a 
majority of the House of the Common men has already decided that 
the Irish State Church shall fall, and that the proposed “ bribe” to the 
Irish Presbyterians by increasing the Begium Donum, and the simul¬ 
taneous “ bribe” to the Roman Catholics in the shape of anew de¬ 
nominational university, shall not be given. Mr. Bright never achieved 
a greater Parliamentary success than on last Friday night; and his 
speech was thoroughly in unison with the prevailing feeling in the 
House of the Common men and in the country. While replying to 
Lord Mayo, Mr. Bright, on those two questions which are here regarded 
with so much interest, said,—“What does he really propose ? Why, to 
add another buttress to the Establishment in the shape of a bribe. He 
says he will offer to the Catholic hierarchy and the Catholic people of 
Ireland a thing which the people don’t want, but which the hierarchy 
does. Lord Mayo then went on to touch upon the Begium Donum, and 
to speak of it, I think, as a miserable provision for tiie Presbyterians 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


129 


in the North of Ireland. If he had the courage—the desperate 
courage—he would probably have proposed to endow the Catholic 
University, and to increase, or even double the Regium Donum. Lord 
Mayo does not express dissent, and I rather think he wishes it were 
safely done. But the object of the proposal is this—What Lord Mayo 
would like to have said to the members who represent the Catholic 
population in the House, and what he would like to have said to the 
Presbyterians of the North of Ireland, is this—“ If you will continue 
to support the Established Church in Ireland and its supremacy,” to 
the one, “ we will endow your university”—a university really, if not 
professedly, under clerical rule—and to the other, “We will double 
your stipends by doubling the Regium Donum.” Now, I fondly hope that 
Lord Mayo will not think I am saying anything uncivil,—but I must 
say that his proposal appears to me at once grotesque and imbecile. 
There will be no newly-endowed Catholic University, and no increase 
of the Regium Donum at the expense of the taxpayers of the United 
Queendom. Is it to have been untrue to the interests of the Liberal 
party—is it to have divided that party, thus to have consistently told the 
people this truth ? The compact at the Langliam Hotel is repudiated 
with the whole of the Irish policy of the Government. A Liberal 
party that had to be maintained by such “ bribes” would not be worth 
preserving; and the most cheering indication of the prospects of the 
Liberal party is the unanimity with which the Government scheme 
has been condemned. 

Some politicians have expressed impatience at the certain prospect 
of an inconclusive ending of the debate; but, in the present state of 
affairs, nothing can be more natural or more just. In the first place, 
it is the duty of Reformers to give your Ministry ample opportunity 
and full time to mature and declare your policy. If the Opposition 
brought forward any motion embodying a decisive opinion, they would 
immediately arouse the old party feelings, while side issues connected 
with the fate of your Ministry or the duration of Parliament would 
arise to complicate matters, and the Nation should be launched into all 
the irritating and irrelevant excitement of a great party fight. The 
present attitude of the Opposition—not hostile but expectant—imposes 
on your Government a serious responsibility ; for if you fail to indicate 
the spirit of a good Irish policy, you will be left without excuse. You 
cannot afterwards say that you have not had fair play. You cannot accuse 
the Liberal party of any factious urgency or undue pressure ; you must 
confess that you have had a clear stage and a full allowance of time for 
the development of any policy. Nor need the Liberals take any great 
credit" to their party for a generous forbearance in pressing their own 
united opinion on the Ministry. The fact is—and I may mention it as 
a profound party secret—they have no united opinion to press. The 
general tone of the Liberal party is sound; and with respect to the 
proper spirit of their legislation for Ireland, there is practically no dif¬ 
ference of opinion. It has been well said, that “ There is no Tea-room 
on the question of the Irish Church.” But an advance from principles 
to details finds even now a diversity of practical views that would 
probably show themselves more clearly if Reformers came to discuss 
the clauses of a bill. The debate, therefore, will not only give your 
Ministry an opportunity to develop your policy—and, as you are a 
Darwinian in politics, you are a believer in development—but it will also 
enable the abundant “ Liberalism” of the Opposition to form a policy 


180 THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 

capable of being embodied in practical legislation. The difference be¬ 
tween the two parties in the case of Ireland is, that the Liberals are 
thoroughly agreed as to the principles of action, while the Tories are not, 
but that they have not yet shaped out a policy in detail. AVe are just 
one stage beyond our opponents. If you will not soon after the close of 
this debate, let us understand clearly the actual principles of your Irish 
scheme, the Liberal party must and will advance, and you will be left 
two stages behind. But when the Liberal party have embodied their 
Irish creed in distinct Parliamentary declarations, as they must and will 
do during the session, your opportunity will be lost. The fate of the 
Ministry will then be decided on the hustings at the next general elec¬ 
tion, and you will meet, as Premier, a new Parliament elected to turn 
you out. This language may be thought rather rude ; but it simply 
anticipates the course of events. All, therefore, depends on the final 
resolve of your Ministry as it may be made known by yourself at the 
close of the debate. On last Friday, at least one valuable addition was 
made to the discussion of the subject. Mr. Bright’s plan for the partial 
settlement of the land question was, though not unimportant, the 
smallest part of his speech. I am not going to discuss it now. But, 
with reference both to his proposal and to that of Mr. Mill, I may give 
one warning to antagonists like Lord Dufferin, who debate the matter 
merely from an economical point of view. They altogether omit one 
side of the question. The economical results of any scheme might be 
very small, and yet the political and moral results very considerable. 
For instance, to use an illustration that Lord Dufferin thoroughly 
understands, let us take Tenant Right as it is practised in Ulster. 
Anybody who has studied the subject must be struck with the cloud of 
witnesses—Lord Dufferin himself amongst them—who testify that it 
has often a most injurious effect in depriving the incoming tenant of 
his capital at the very time that he most wants it; yet these very wit¬ 
nesses testify that it has preserved a good feeling between Soil-Lord and 
tenant, that it has permitted the development of industry in Ulster, 
and that if we abolish the privilege by law, we should, probably, cause a 
local insurrection. In the same way, many measures giving to the 
Irish peasantry security of tenure might or might not be small or slow 
in their actual industrial effects; but it would be a great thing if w T e 
compelled the people to admit that Parliament had legislated with a 
view to their good, and if their food, however scanty, were “unleavened 
with a sense of injustice,” I know now that, however just some or 
many Soil-Lords may be, and however idle some or many Irish tenants 
may be, it is possible for a Rent-claimer to reap an increased rent, due 
entirely to improvements made by the tenant, and that this robbery can 
be wrought under the form of law. A similar conviction finally caused 
the doom of slavery. It was said that slaveholders were generally mild 
and just, and negro slaves generally lazy ; but, after all, it was possible 
for a planter to treat his slaves with gross injustice, and many of his 
cruelties could be perpetrated under cover of the law. Politicians 
cannot in this world redress all wrongs, but they can repeal all laws 
that aid or sanction injustice. As to the Irish Church, Reformers 
must fully accept Mr. Bright's statement that as it stands “it is 
doomed.” As a State Church in Ireland it cannot stand ; as the only 
endowed Church in Ireland it cannot stand; it must be partially or 
entirely disendowed. Mr. Bright declares for “equality on the voluntary 
principle,” leaving to each Church a certain small and independent 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


181 


endowment. His plan so far recommends itself that it is at once thorough 
in principle and considerate in its practical application. One word 
addressed to the Nonconformists of England and Scotland especially 
deserves to be well weighed by the British people : “ They should bear 
in mind that the whole of this property which is now in the possession 
of the Established Church of Ireland is Irish property.” If the in¬ 
ferences from this fact were fully accepted the ground of discussion 
would be greatly cleared. In the first place, the Irish have a right to 
their own ecclesiastical property, and, e converso, no right to put their 
hands into the pockets of English taxpayers. Then, they have a right 
to distribute that ecclesiastical property according to the wishes of the 
majority of the Irish Nation. These two principles are great beacon 
lights that warn us off many shoals and quicksands, and will guide us 
safely into port. I could not express in better language the hopes 
excited by what some persons call “ this mere debate” than in Mr. 
Bright’s well-chosen words : “ There is much shower and much sun¬ 
shine between the sowing of the seed and the reaping of the harvest, 
but the harvest is reaped after all.” The whole of the great speech 
from which I quote these words was a magnificent contribution to the 
public discussion of the question. If the debate had no other result, 
this noble Oration would amply repay the House of the Common men and 
the Nation for the time that lias been spent. Ever since the virtual set¬ 
tlement of the Franchise question, Mr. Bright has raised himself from 
his prominent position as the tribune of the people to become what, 
without undue praise, may be called a national man. His peculiar 
and personal position has helped him. As one of an excessively un- 
establislied sect—a sect that develops intense individuality of religious 
feeling,—he is free from any prejudice in favor even of the smallest 
Nonconformist body, and he is enabled to view with impartial indif¬ 
ference all secular organizations for the propagation of religious views. 
Then the fact that he has never been officially connected with either of the 
great parties of the State lifts him above the atmosphere of suspicion. 
His vehemence also, and the intensity of his feelings on political ques¬ 
tions, never mislead him into any malignity of attack. He hits hard, 
but with a kind manly reserve of manner that shows full strength even 
after the blow is given, and complete control of temper while delivering 
it. For clearness of statement, for apt and homely illustration, for 
genial humor in rallying opponents, for practical good sense, for a 
pure nobleness of feeling, pathetic in its simplicity and depth, the 
Oration of last Friday evening was unsurpassed; and I doubt whether, 
in any time, any man has given forth in any senate a more perfect 
utterance of manly and persuasive speech. Nor can Reformers forget 
that Mr. Bright is accustomed to success. He is not the spoiled child 
of victory, for victory has not spoiled him ; but he has achieved more 
difficult things than that justice to Ireland for which lie now so admi¬ 
rably pleads. He struggled for years to destroy Protection ; it is gone. 
He advocated Household Suffrage ; it is accomplished. He denounced 
the compulsory collection of church-rates ; it is about to disappear. 
He now prophesies the removal of the old ascendency and old agrarian 
systems that have wrought such mischief in Ireland, and he helps 
to fulfill his prophecy by an exposition of the great evils they have 
caused. His success hitherto has been due to the fact that, however 
antagonistic Mr. Bright may appear to many mere Tories, he is, in 
truth, a man whose sympathies are much wider and deeper than his 

i 


132 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


antipathies; lie has many honest prepossessions, and is essentially an 
Englishman. He is also,—and the fact is not trilling,—a man of 
genius. He can perfectly understand the feelings of those who stand 
opposed to him; and therefore lie has the power of compelling them to 
hear him,—of piercing them to the quick as he directs their thoughts, 
and of indicting their prejudices at the tribunal of mental reflection. 
His words cannot die with the sound, nor slumber in the pages that 
record them ; they will make the debate memorable, and one day will 
flower into fact. 

The Irish policy of your Administration may be explained in a very 
few words. On the land question, it adheres to the measure introduced 
last year, with some alterations ; and, on the Church question, it adopts 
the principle of religious equality, but seeks to give effect to this policy 
by preserving existing institutions at the price of indiscriminate endow¬ 
ment. Lord Mayo’s speech, which commenced at nine o’clock on Tuesday 
night, and terminated precisely at one on Wednesday morning, the 11th 
current, was not favorably received. It was very long, very pains¬ 
taking, and very dull. The House of the Common men had been kept 
waiting several weeks for the announcement of the Irish policy of your 
Government; after Lord Mayo had been speaking for three hours 
on Tuesday night, his audience were still waiting for. his promised 
plans of Irish Eeform. At last, however, they were slowly, and with 
evident embarrassment, produced to a wearied house of the repre¬ 
sentatives of the Common men of the Nation. They then amounted 
to just what I have described. In one sense, they may be considered 
satisfactory. We have a Conservative Government, and an Irish Chief 
Secretary, representing the Toryism of Ulster, formally abandoning 
the principle of ascendency. It is not now a question of our “Pro¬ 
testant institutions” by themselves;—it is, how to preserve our 
Protestant institutions by originating similar Eoman Catholic insti¬ 
tutions at the expense of the taxpayers, and thus make one set balance 
the other. No person can read the speech of the Chief Secretary with 
any intelligence, and deny that this was its unmistakable meaning. 
Lord Mayo implied a great deal more than he expressed; he seemed 
afraid to say openly all he desired; but, at all events, the Tory 
transition is unequivocal. It is no use, therefore, appealing any 
longer to Irish Presbyterians and Wesleyans to come forward in support 
of our Protestant institutions, as representing even the protest of a 
small minority against what they call “ idolatry.” What, then, was 
the object of the men who organized the Hillsborough demonstration 
and the Ulster Protestant Defence Association ? They simply meant 
a defence of “the honors and emoluments.” Eeligion had nothing 
whatever to do with the agitation. The enlightened and well-conducted 
Northern Whig remarked immediately after the Eotundo meeting,—and 
only last Saturday, in commenting on the proceedings of Thursday 
evening week in the Ulster Hall, that “ there was a suspicious absence 
of any condemnation of the proposed endowment of all religions, as 
advocated by great Tory authorities, and that this so-called Protestant 
Defence Association looked very much like an Indiscriminate Endow¬ 
ment Association in disguise.” The justice of this remark is now 
amply illustrated. It is evident that some of the scheming organizers 
of those meetings knew well enough what was coming. They did not 
wish to embarrass you and your colleagues by any unseasonable 
resolutions against a system of general endowment. Most sensible 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


183 


people liave thought that we are already paying dear enough for the 
maintenance of the Established Church, and its outwork,—Trinity 
College, Dublin ,—so far as the enjoyment of the prodigal revenues 
is concerned. It seems, however, that the people are to pay a 
great deal more for the possession of such blessings. That the in¬ 
justice, which it is admitted has become intolerable, of thus keep¬ 
ing up such institutions for a small and wealthy minority may be 
remedied, we are to have endowments everywhere, and on the most 
extensive scale. The Catholic University is but a first step. The 
Government plainly acknowledge that they will give whatever the 
Catholics will accept. The only difficulty in the way of the enjoyment 
of this golden shower falling bountifully on the majority, as well as on 
the minority, in Ireland, is,—that the Catholics do not appear to have 
quite such accommodating consciences as the defenders of the Estab¬ 
lishment, and as those Irish Presbyterian clergymen who have asked 
for an increase of the Regium Donum at any price—thus directly 
misrepresenting the feeling that prevails in the Irish Presbyterian 
Church, and being utterly untrue to its interests. The very decided 
condemnation with which the negative as well as the positive policy of 
your Government has been received, cannot be expected to add to your 
prospects of official stability. It is, however, of the highest importance 
that the really sincere, though misled, partizans of “ our Protestant 
institutions” should learn from Lord Mayo’s lips what the phrase now 
really means, so that they may know what they have to expect in the 
future, and judge whether writers like myself, or those organs that have 
so long traded on their prejudices, have really told them the truth. So 
far as the Government on Tuesday night, the 10th current, were under¬ 
stood to have pledged themselves to maintain the Establishment, they 
were expected to have adhered to the policy of “ No Surrender!” It will 
be seen, however, from the most undeniable evidence, that “No 
Surrender” on your, and Lord Mayo’s lips, means the most ample and 
complete surrender of everything but money. It means, indeed, giving 
up the principle of an Establishment, and keeping the money of the 
Establishment. It means even more than this. To keep this money, 
you seek to produce equality by giving away the money of other people. 
The Irish Catholics and the Irish Presbyterians—for they are associated 
together on this principle—are to be bribed largely out of the public 
purse, in order that the Irish Establishment and Trinity College may 
continue to possess all their monopolies. With regard to the University 
question, Lord Mayo said,—“Were we about to commence from the 
beginning, it would be better to have but one university for Ireland; 
but, as things stand, it is better to supplement and to add, rather than 
to pull down and destroy.” These words, though only directed 
expressly to the University question, in fact comprehend the whole 
policy of your Administration on the Church question. A Catholic 
University is to be established and maintained by the State, but 
“altogether free from Government control”; and, said Lord Mayo, 
with an amusing candor and simplicity,—“ I beg leave to point out 
that the institution which it is proposed to originate does not resemble 
in any way any existing university in the United Kingdom.” “ The 
state of the Established Church,” remarks the Chief Secretary, “has 
considerably improved. ’ But he does not tell us how. It cannot be 
by fulfilling the mission of such an Establishment, and converting the 
Irish Roman Catholics. It has been the richly-endowed Church of 



184 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


a small minority for three hundred years ; and it is the richly-endowed 
Church of a small minority now. It must not, however, he overthrown. 
“ Anything but that,” virtually says Lord Mayo. He observes, evidently 
speaking under the inspiration of Sir Frederick IIeygate, and the 
recent meeting of the Irish Tory members at the Langham Hotel, “the 
Presbyterians are receiving a grant which is at best but a miserable 
apology, and the Protestant Church is not at all averse to an alteration 
of their position.” “ A miserable apology” the Regium Donum may 
be if it be compared with the revenues of the Establishment; but it is 
not “a miserable apology,” if it be considered in connection with the 
fact, that the other Protestant Dissenters and the Roman Catholics are 
supporting their own clergy, and have also to pay for the Establish¬ 
ment. Why should the taxpayers of Scotland, England, and Ireland 
be called upon to contribute more money for the support of the 
Rev. John Rogers and his following in the Presbyterian Church'? 
Lord Mayo observed immediately afterwards,—“ We must not proceed 
hastily; but of all the schemes which have been proposed, I object 
pre-eminently to that known as the process of leveling down. ' But 
Lord Mayo does not say that he objects to the scheme of leveling up. 
He is in favor of it; and therefore wishes, as I have said, to level up, 
against his own wishes, the Catholic Church. His words are explicit: 
they are literally,—“ There would not be ai^ objection to make all 
Churches equal; but the result must be secured by elevation, and not 
by confiscation.” Here, then, is the end of the exclusive Episcopalian 
ascendency. The policy of the “ Quarterly Review,” the policy of 
Lord Ellenborough and Lord Hardwicke, is accepted by our present 
Ministers ; and religious equality is to be produced by indiscriminate 
endowment, whether the people and the clergy like it or not. Turning 
to the comments of the Ministerial organ—the Standard —on Lord 
Mayo’s speech, I find his policy of leveling up fully explained. “It 
might,” said the Standard of last Wednesday, “be politic to make 
provision for the Presbyterian and Roman Catholic clergy; it cannot 
be politic to rob and exasperate the Churchmen.” No person can 
really doubt, therefore, that the principle of religious equality is 
accepted even by her Majesty’s present advisers. Thus far lias their 
“education” come. They are, however, unwilling pupils, and are not 
turning their newly-acquired knowledge to the right account. I would 
ask the most sincere and resolute friends of Irish Protestantism if the 
exceptional privileges and emoluments of this Irish Established Church 
are worth maintaining on the conditions proposed ? Why should not 
all Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, after existing rights have been 
carefully respected, be left equally to maintain their own clergy ? In 
this manner the solution of this Church question is simple. Any other 
is beset with insuperable difficulties. A stand must be maintained at 
once in the interests of religious equality itself, against this Erastian 
policy of indiscriminate endowment. Neither Protestants nor Catholics 
will have it. 

Prolonged from speaker to speaker through a chain of deliverances, 
now bright with the gold of thought, now dull as lead, now hrass-like 
with the audacity of ignorance and selfishness, the Irish debate, which 
commenced on the 10th current, sprang into life again on the evening 
of the 16tli, at ten o’clock, and was subsequently brought to a tem¬ 
porary conclusion at an early hour on last Tuesday morning. The 
rising of Mr. Gladstone was the signal for an extraordinary demon- 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


135 


stration of interest. A ringing continuous cheer liailecl the Liberal 
leader as he advanced to the table ; and the echo brought the outlying 
members flocking into the House from tea-room and lobby; so that, 
before the sound of this cordial salute was well over, the Chamber, 
which had been scantily tenanted, was suddenly quite full. The chief 
of the Liberal party lost no time in making his opinions clear respect- 
iug the character of the debate. He did not waste many words before 
he charged the Government in a stern and vigorous manner with 
having “ failed to realize the crisis.” Ireland, he declared, had an 
account unsettled, a debt due, in payment for which the Government 
of her Majesty had offered nothing but dreary statistics, and scarcely 
so much as a distant “promise to pay.” In the opinion of the civilized 
world, in the mouths of all just and enlightened men, abroad as well 
as at home, Britain stands arraigned for not having done nearly enough 
to be “ in the right” as regards the unhappy country whose sighs break 
the peace of Europe. Mr. Gladstone had, in these very few sentences, 
given promise of an earnest speech, which he went on to keep up with 
every word. Quoting Burke, he invoked, instead of the languid 
optimism of Lord Mayo, the “ early and provident fear, which is the 
mother of security.” For himself, lie protested he would liberate liis 
conscience from delays that offend the principles of Justice and imperil 
the very safety of the Empire. The House of the Common men was 
now roused thoroughly from lethargy; it rang with excitement and 
assent when Mr. Gladstone scourged the small theories of the Irish 
Secretary. “Not time,” as yet, to deal liberally with the problems of 
the land—when we had been hard at it for seven hundred years ! Or 
could the Treasury Bench dare to pronounce the word “ Justice” in 
the same utterance by which they even pretended to believe that the 
Irish Establishment could be maintained? If, as Lord Mayo said, 
Irishmen in Canada and Australia were not Fenians, wliat did that 
mean except that, in those colonies the consciences of Irish people had 
not been insulted by an alien and dominant Church, nor their pockets 
picked by a system which robs them of their investments in the soil ? 
“ Portentous” was the moral of the difference—“ rotten the argument 
which could found delay on such facts. Again these unsparing adjectives 
were cheered to the echo,—as the House found out that, if theie were 
followers in the Liberal party who don t follow, Mr. Bouverie and 
others were likely to learn that its leader meant to lead. lie’s iewing 
the chief topics of the question, and pausing a little to deride the idea 
of healing the wounds of Erin with a grant to this branch line and a 
job in that rural corner, Mr. Gladstone thundered out of existence the 
educational scheme of Lord Mayo. Dead against the traditions of 
Parliament,—sectarian and useless,—popular with neither Protestant 
nor Catholic,—and, like another famous. Tory effort, a mere “ leap in 
the dark,” this “notion” of Irish education, the speaker declared, was 
not worthy of discussion. With respect to the . Land Tenure, the 
Liberal leader protested that the debt of legislation to Ireland was 
cruelly overdue. Even in the Encumbered Estates Court, a “ boon, 
as that is called, the improvements of tenants had been sold over their 
heads for the benefit of Soil-Lords. Here came, incidentally, a most 
important declaration. Mr. Gladstone protested, that m the case, not 
only of Ireland, but of England, he regarded the law which failing a 
covenant, made the investments of tenants the property of the boil-Lorcl, 
to be radically a bad law, mitigated in England by customs and un- 


1B6 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


written codes, but across the Irish Channel unmitigated and intolerable. 
Mr. Gladstone declined to follow the lead of the Member for West¬ 
minster, which, he thought, meant “the dismissal of landlords;” but 
he would stop at no practical and just measure to obtain “fixity of 
tenure.” He found nothing subversive or violent in the plan of Mr. 
Bright; and a joyous laugh rang through the Liberal benches as the 
hint seemed to be dropped that the revenues of the Establishment 
might do to begin with. The cheers redoubled when, approaching the 
main topic of the debate, Mr. Gladstone repudiated the idea that the 
Church of England would be endangered if justice were done upon the 
Church in Ireland. “ The Church in England,” said the Liberal leader, 
“must not trust to outworks in countries where the presence of those 
outworks is a tyranny; it must trust to its own merits and virtues, 
and live where it has a right to live by its manifest vitality.” Laughing 
to scorn the proposition of a Commission issued to see what is wrong 
about the Irish Church, when what is wrong is simply that it exists at 
all, Mr. Gladstone declared in earnest tones that “ That Clmrch must 
cease to exist." A burst of energetic cheering broke forth, and rang the 
knell of the last great badge of conquest and ascendency in Ireland, of 
which these few words will be recorded as the sentence. The debate 
was instantly relieved from its character of sterile eloquence by the 
clear and certain manifestation of Liberal policy; and, while he de¬ 
manded “religious equality,” Mr. Gladstone explained what he meant 
by it. He meant by disestablishment the putting an end to the exist¬ 
ence of the State Church in Ireland; and at this renewed definition 
the aspect of the Protestant squires was most touching to watch. They 
listened like prisoners at a condemned sermon ; and the followers of 
Mr. Newdegate, who had rejoiced at the refusal to endow a Catholic 
University, sat now “ in silence locked.” Nevertheless, cheers with a 
new and “ fighting” ring resounded when the Liberal leader said that, 
unless you, the Premier, and you sometimes did, expand the useless pro¬ 
gramme of your Irish Secretary, it would be the duty and course of the 
Opposition to propose and carry into action, if obliged, a scheme to 
do absolute justice,—in deeds, not w'ords,—to wronged Ireland ; for 
“ when the case is ripe, and the hour is come, justice delayed is justice 
denied.” It was the “very witching hour of night” when you, our 
literary Prime Minister, rose to wind up the historical debate, and to 
show that office has not taken off the edge from your sharp tongue. 
You like to start with a laugh upon your side, especially when you can 
thus partly dissipate the profound and serious effect which your great 
opponent leaves by a peroration like the noble one of last Monday 
evening. You got a laugh out of the position into which Mr. Glad¬ 
stone had placed you, as a most unfortunate Premier who had inherited 
the crisis of seven hundred years at its culminating point. On serious 
thought, there is less of the comic, probably, than the true in the state¬ 
ment and the complaint. The crisis and your Premiership have cer¬ 
tainly arrived together in our annals, whether the company is mutually 
agreeable and suitable or not. You spent some time and energy in 
replying to Mr. Horsman about the Synod of Tliurles before you pro¬ 
ceeded to declare that the crisis in Ireland was “ got up” by your right 
honorable antagonist, and was a “monstrous invention.” l r ou girded 
up the “ tempestuous rhetoric” with which the attack began and ended, 
and proceeded to defend the Irish Church, which might be a national 
Church without being universal. Government should be allied with 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


187 


religion, or it becomes a mere police ; and a Church is a “ bulwark at 
once against incredulity and fanaticism,” and must be endowed. These 
apothegms dropped from your lips as if you had been a Professor of 
Exegetical Theology in the University of Gottingen. If endowment is 
opposed to the spirit of the age, “ it will fall,” yon confessed; but then 
you disbelieve that there is any such opposition, and yon object to vague 
phrases. It was “ the philosophers” who helped the advocates of dis- 
endowment, an alliance which yon deprecated as unnatural. You 
were “ in very gracious fooling” on the subject of philosophers. Dex¬ 
terously, and in your finest manner, you sought to show that to do 
justice in Ireland would be to undermine ecclesiastical foundations in 
England; and you gave it out, amid sonorous cheers from your own 
side, that to “ effect such a revolution” the Opposition must first obtain 
“leave from the country.” The “immense beneficence” of endowments 
was not to be annihilated thus; and it would be “ indecent” in Parlia¬ 
ment, without an appeal to the country, to deal with “ such an enor¬ 
mous issue.” Such a point must be settled by the new Parliament,—• 
to which you looked forward, you said, with cheerful confidence,—and 
not by the present Parliament, which is near its end. But, for your 
own part, you declared yourself ardently for the principle of endow¬ 
ment. Here you took occasion to administer to the House of the Lords 
a little lesson on demeanor, in return for the comments on your moral 
character lately made. As to the speech quoted out of your own mouth 
against you on the occasion, you said, “ Nobody listened to you at the 
time:” it bore upon it “ the heedless rhetoric which is the appanage of 
speakers below the gangway.” If the motion had been pressed, you 
said, you should have withstood it. You declared you would stand to 
the plan of a Charter for a Roman Catholic University; you would 
legislate upon details of the land tenure, and issue a Commission of 
Inquiry; and you would introduce an Irish Reform Bill at once. 
These things, you believed, would be found enough for the “ crisis. 
After an explanation from Mr. Bright, and the statement of Mr. 
Maguire that “ he was quite satisfied with the result of the dehate, 
a sentiment which Liberal opinion will echo w T itli renewed courage and 
vitality,—the long discussion ended on the morning of luesday last, 
the 16th current. 

The great Irish debate v 7 as thus closed about two o clock on last Tues¬ 
day morning with elaborate speeches from Mr. Gladstone as the leadei 
of the Opposition, and from yourself, not only as the leader of the House 
of the Common men, but as the Prime Minister of the British Empire. 
Those two concluding addresses did not, indeed, alter the impression 
produced by the discussion of the three nights last week. Mr. Glad¬ 
stone spoke for tw r o hours. He appears to have made as complete an 
exposition of Irish policy as any statesman could be expected to gi\ o 
from the front bench of the Opposition side of the House ol the Com¬ 
mon men. He showed himself thoroughly in harmony with his party 
on all the great questions, and in condemnation ot the Ministerial 
policy—if the discreditable make-shifts which Lord Mayo was put up to 
announce can be at all considered worthy ot being called a polic\. 
Some croakers had hinted that the leader of the (opposition was 
disposed to regard wdtli favor the extraordinary proposition of the 
Government to originate for the Irish Catholics the most purely de¬ 
nominational university ever known ; and, while endowing it out ot 
the funds of the State, to make no provision for State control. Mr, 


IBB 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


Gladstone has given a signal contradiction to those predictions. It is 
surprising, indeed, that they should have been made, because it is 
certain that he had, during the last two Sessions, condemned any 
proposal for setting up rival universities at the expense of the State. He 
had expressly alluded last year to your rdleged promise to The O’Do- 
noghue, and condemned it by anticipation as an expedient which would 
lower the standard of education. It was to be expected that Mr. 
Gladstone should defend the Supplemental Charter, as a plan to 
reconcile the wishes of the Catholic hierarchy for denominational 
education with an institution which represented an essentially different 
principle. It is not worth while now to revive an old controversy. 
The Supplemental Charter is a thing of the past; and Mr. Gladstone 
himself shows no disposition to revive it. That men who are now on 
the Ministerial Benches should have condemned the concession of the 
Supplement Charter as injurious to mixed and non-sectarian education, 
and should afterwards themselves propose to originate new denomina¬ 
tional institutions, of which the effect must be fatal, not merely to the 
principle of the Queen’s University, but to the existence of the colleges 
themselves, is, indeed, most discreditable. Though Lord Mayo made 
some merit of having first developed the scheme for a Catholic 
University in the House of the Common men, it is well known that it 
had been the subject of negociations with The O’Donoghue and other 
Catholic members. Your promise was deliberately made, and it has 
been sought as deliberately to carry it into effect. The mere statements 
of the scheme has, however, called forth so decided a condemnation of 
it from every part of the House of the Common men that I am not 
surprised that you have attempted to explain away some of its most 
extraordinary features. You have endeavored to maintain that, in 
asking the House of the Common men to find money for the building, 
professorships, scholarships, and prospective colleges of such a Uni¬ 
versity, and in declaring openly that all State control of such an 
institution was to be abandoned as soon as it was fairly under weigh, 
the helm being given up to the hierarchy whose wishes it was sought 
to gratify, the Government were only proposing to do what had been 
done for the London University. The establishment of the London 
University is directly opposed in every conceivable point to the plan 
for the Catholic University, which you still, stoutly declare to be most 
practicable and unobjectionable. Your mistake has arisen from your 
constant habit of seeking to outbid your opponents. This has been 
your invariable practice from the commencement of your career. Even 
in 1832, you assured the Radicals that Lord Grey's Ministry had not 
been sufficiently liberal in the great measure which inaugurated a new 
era in our history. You considered yourself quite justifiable in pro¬ 
claiming war to the knife against the Whigs as not Democratic enough, 
and in defending, at the same time, the rotten boroughs. This is 
what you meant by Tory Democracy. You signalized your first ad¬ 
vancement to be a Protectionist leader in 1816 by a bid for the support 
of Mr. Smith O’Brien and the party of Young Irelanders that you and 
the Tories endeavored to make use of, to turn out the Government of 
Sir Robert Peel. Two years ago, in resisting the seven-pound rental 
Suffrage of Lord Russell and Mr. Gladstone, you declared yourself 
opposed to a lowering, and, as you called it, a “ degradation,” of the 
Franchise, and in favor of “ lateral” Reform. Reformers learnt, how¬ 
ever, last Session that lateral Reform meant Household Suffrage, and 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


189 


that the Whigs had again not gone far enough. Thus, too, on this 
Irish University education question. You have cherished this pro¬ 
posal of an endowed Catholic University just as you cherished House¬ 
hold Suffrage as an instrument with which to turn the flank of Mr. 
Gladstone and the Liberals. What Household Suffrage was to the 
seven-pound rental Franchise, the plan for establishment of this new 
denominational university is to the Supplemental Charter. You would, 
as no person who is acquainted with your works can doubt, outbid 
your opponents on the Irish Church question as on other questions, if 
you dared. The convictions of your supporters, however, are on this 
point insurmountable. Y T ou cannot, as in inducing them to consent 
to Household Suffrage, appeal to the imagination, and promise that 
the abolition of such an institution will be for their general in¬ 
terests. Their strongest prejudices stand in the way. You are 
obliged, therefore, to talk some of the language of old Toryism. You 
taunt your opponents with not having dealt with the subject them¬ 
selves. You might as well blame them for not having carried a House¬ 
hold Suffrage Reform Bill when they were in office. Can you realize 
the situation you are in ? This is not a season for small expedients— 
for mere tricks. You now say that you have only been in power a 
few days; but you told us, on appearing in the House of the Common 
men for the first time as Prime Minister, that your Government was 
merely a continuation of Lord Derby's, and that its policy would be 
the same. The exposition of Irish policy made by Lord Mayo on last 
Tuesday week was announced to be given more than a fortnight before, 
and it had been promised for more than a month. You cannot say 
that the Liberal party, since 1882, have ever defended the Irish Church. 
Their greatest writers and speakers have condemned it in the most 
emphatic manner. The circumstances with which we have now to 
deal are not what they were even four years ago. The Fenian or¬ 
ganization, however contemptible it may be ; the three years of the 
suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act; the judgment of foreign nations; 
the principles which are being acted upon throughout the civilized 
world, coinciding with the great extension of the Suffrage in the Lnited 
Queendom oblige us to put our house in order. The history of the 
Irish Church question is like that of other great questions. The evil 
is acknowledged and deplored, but endured for a time. The Nation, 
however, suddenly awakes to the conviction that a bad institution or a 
bad system of government has become intolerable, and it is summarily 
swept away. The Catholic Emancipation Act was soon followed by 
the passing of the Reform Act of 1832, and now we find that a more 
considerable extension of the Franchise has precipitated the solution 
of the Irish Church question. Every Liberal will rejoice to learn that 
Mr. Gladstone’s declaration on this point was most decided and 
unmistakable. On this Irish Church question he is prepared to do 
battle, and to do it at once. The issue is plain enough. Is religious 
equality in Ireland to be produced by universal endowment, or by a 
surrender of the unjust and untenable position of the Irish Establish¬ 
ment? You declare that you are in favor of new endowments; Mr. 
Gladstone of disestablishing the Irish Church, and certainly not of 
extending a system of endowments either to Protestants oi Catholics. 
The decision of the House of the Common men will be at once chal- 
1 eimcd ; but, whatever may be that decision, the final and speedy 

victorv to the cause of Justice, equality, and religious freedom is not 

• ’ 


140 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


doubtful. You may pretend to consider that religion and religious 
endowments are the same thing. The people may soon tell you that 
they are not the same; and that the one can exist and can flourish 
without the other. 

Seldom has free, unfettered discussion in the House of the Common 
men produced so instant and signal a result as the Irish debate that 
closed on last Monday night, or rather at an early hour on Tuesday 
morning. Not the least remarkable of its characteristics lay in what 
was not said on the occasion. In London, Reformers had—to speak 
plainly—a grave impeachment of the Irish Church as a political 
nuisance, and not one English member rose to defend the Establish¬ 
ment ; and even the Irish Protestants were feebly represented by 
Mr.—not “ the great”— Vance. When an institution some hundreds 
of years old is thus left without a word of decent apology, its doom is 
sealed; and that judgment is the great result of the week. Tories, 
as well as Liberals, feel that the last hour of that ancient iniquity has 
come; and the only question is, with what maimed rites and cere¬ 
monies the old offender is to be interred. Reformers may safely say 
that the policy of your Ministry will but hasten its decease: you 
simply use three weapons—obscurity, delay, and threats. Excepting 
that you declare generally for State Churches, I fail to make out what 
you mean. You tell us that “the status of the unendowed Churches 
of Ireland is to be altered,” but what you indicate I cannot discover. 
There is only one unendowed Church in Ireland—the Roman Catholic; 
and how is its “ status” to be changed, and what does “ status” mean? 
It does not mean “ salaries to priests”—against any such scheme you 
declare. In regard to the Established Church, you obstinately refuse 
to say a word as to the diminution or diversion of its endowments ; you 
postpone a statement of your policy, evidently hoping that “ something 
may turn up.” You have another weapon—the menace of a dissolu¬ 
tion. But as Prime Minister you greatly mistake if you think that 
the flourish of that State sword will awe the Liberal party from its 
appointed course. I must doubt whether you have the power or the 
daring to use it. You know as well as I do that your party does not 
command the confidence of the country. Every recent election has 
gone against the Tories ; and the rural fiasco at Cambridge indicates 
the heavy blow and great discouragement occasioned by the surrender 
of last year. Y r ou also know that a dissolution just now would be 
more than inconvenient. The business of the House is much in arrear; 
the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in want of money ; and while a 
sudden needless break-up of the London season would be unpopular 
with all kinds and conditions of men, the whole Nation would be 
exasperated by the wanton stoppage of legislative work at this peculiar 
juncture. There are times when a menace of the kind may be made 
with sincerity and effect, but now it is impotent, because idle. The 
policy of the Liberal party, therefore, must be shaped without regard 
to the menace. It is our business, in the first place, to extract from 
your Government its Irish Reform Bill and its Tenant Bill: we may 
take whatever is good in those measures as “ an advance on account,” 
without in any way surrendering our claim to that payment in full which 
the Irish people now justly demand. And Mr. Gladstone’s declaration 
on the Irish Church sets forth the principles to which, through its 
leader, the Liberal party is now pledged. “ That Church as a^State 
Church must cease to exist.” We are to have no more Irish bishops 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


141 


in the House of the Lords, no more Irish Protestant Bishops attending 
Privy Councils at the Castle, no more Protestant chaplains to the Lord 
Lieutenant—in short, no connection .by way of patronage or respon¬ 
sibility between the Irish Protestant Church and the State. The next 
point is “ religious equality in Ireland.” The third is, that while there 
shall be due regard to vested interests, there is to be no redistribution 
of the revenues of the Church in salaries and stipends to any priests,— 
Roman Catholic or otherwise. Mr. Gladstone did not exclude from 
consideration suggestions such as Mr. Bright’s, for making a final 
grant of a certain sum to each of the three Churches ; but in the mam 
his idea evidently is, that the time for compromise has passed, and 
that we must apply the axe to the root of that upas-tree of Protestant 
ascendency which has inflicted such incalculable mischief upon Ireland 
and the Irish people. He pledged himself to bring the question before 
the House, and in doing so he distinctly disclaimed any idea of another 
Appropriation Clause with its mere declaration of principle : he pro¬ 
mised a distinct plan that the country could estimate as a whole. By 
this straightforward proceeding the whole controversy will be clearly 
raised: the Liberal party will be rallied around a banner bearing a 
distinct battle-cry, and should you dare to challenge on the hustings 
the decision of Parliament, you will find that the Irish debate has been 
heard beyond the walls of Parliament, and has borne fruit, not only on 
members, but on constituents. There are, I do not doubt, many mem¬ 
bers of the Liberal party who would have preferred some honest plan 
of equivalent endowment for all sects to that disendowment which is 
now only a question of time. But those politicians are not opposed in 
principle to disendowment, and they have suggested the other plans as 
platforms, on which they could meet halfway, some of the calm, moderate 
friends of the Irish Establishment. That unfortunate Church, however, 
has no calm, moderate friends. Some curse seems to have clung to 
its ill-gotten gains. With few exceptions, the cause of the Church 
produces defenders who are so feeble that one is amazed at their 
bigotry, and so bigoted that one is astonished it does not supply them 
with some element of force. If the Irish Protestants had been Logical 
thinkers, even six months ago, a plan such as that advocated by Mr. 
Herbert Stack might have been possible ; but Reformers are warned 
that public opinion has now passed beyond the stage of such solutions. 
Of your speech it is difficult to speak with befitting calmness ; it was 
a clever speech, based on a mere misconception—I will not call it mis¬ 
representation. If Mr. Bright had liberated his great mind on the 
general question of endowments, your Oration might have been a spicy 
and interesting retort; or if you would print it in a tract, and distri¬ 
bute it by way of counter-check to the Liberation Society, I should 
read it with care, and criticize it with pleasure. What had it, how¬ 
ever, to do with the debate ? Mr. Bright denounced the Irish Church, 
not because it is established and endowed, but because it is, as it 
stands, a political insult to the Irish people; whereupon you cry, 
“ People of England, this man is opposed to all endowments, and Mr. 
Gladstone agrees with him.” Thus, by attributing to Mr. Bright 
what he did not say, and does not think, and by attributing to Mr. 
Gladstone a cordial concurrence in what Mr. Bright did not say and 
does not think, you dreamed that you had made out a plausible case 
against the Opposition. Did you deceive a single member in the 
House ? Mr. Bright has again and again declared, that in his opinion 


142 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


the Church of England stands on a very different footing from the 
Irish Establishment, and not even yourself can doubt that Mr. Glad¬ 
stone is devoted to his Church. -Has Mr. Bright denounced the en¬ 
dowed Church of Scotland ? Never ; and yet, because he points to a 
grave political wrong perpetrated in Ireland under the cloak of religion, 
you start up and defend that general principle of endowment. which 
nobody has attacked. You might as v r ell say that a man criticizing the 
distribution of our garrisons by the Horse Guards “impeaches the 
whole state and status of standing armies,” or that to expose a waste 
of money at South Kensington “ raises at once the delicate and debated 
question of the patronage that the Sovereign should afford to art. 
The device reminds me of Fadladeen, who, before he could decide on 
the merits of a poem, said it was necessary to consider all the poems 
of the kind that had been previously produced. You may rest assured 
that the House of the Common men will not follow } r ou into the very 
wide discussion you so cleverly,—too cleverly,—suggest. Nor are you 
overwise, even as a matter of party tactics, to attempt to raise the con¬ 
troversy. It might be all very well to make “ Endowments” an election 
cry, but what if the electors add the words “No Popery,” and thus 
spoil the game ? But you now say that you still approve of the senti¬ 
ment expressed in your speech of 1844, with its declaration for “ eccle¬ 
siastical equalityin that case you must mean that the Roman Catholic 
Church is to be raised by endowments to a level with the Protestant 
Church. Is that a programme for the hustings? Is anew burthen on 
the British taxpayer, for the sake of a new Irish Church,—and that 
Church Roman Catholic,—is that splendid boon to be the first gift of 
your Administration to the Protestant taxpayers of Great Britain ? 

That the great debate on the causes of the condition of Ireland 
which has engrossed so much of the attention of Parliament will lead 
to any immediate measures of practical utility to the Irish people, is 
obviously most improbable; but still it will have produced results of 
very considerable importance. In the first place, it will probably have 
seriously damaged the position of your Government. Your Cabinet 
has shown itself without a policy in Ireland. Its only policy is a policy 
of ignorance. It has no views in particular about Irish land or the 
Irish State Church, and it will wait till it is enlightened. Now, there 
were two lines which your Government might have taken, either of 
which would have been tolerably creditable to you. How easily you 
could have said that the Ministry considered the questions raised in the 
numerous recent discussions about Ireland too vast and grave for a 
moribund Parliament, that you would not anticipate the decisions of a 
future Parliament, and that all you could and would do to anticipate 
and aid the inquiries of that Parliament was to collect information on 
various heads, which was sure at once to be useful in its proper time. 
You might have boldly said that there was no inevitable occasion 
whatever for legislating for Ireland this year in a hurry and in a panic; 
and that you were prepared to take the sense of the House of the 
Common men on this one issue. If you had done this, you would cer¬ 
tainly have shown courage and confidence in yourselves, and have 
gained in general esteem, and such a course would, I believe, have 
commended itself to the present House of the Common men. But you 
did not take this course. You stated, on the contrary, that you had a 
distinct policy about Ireland, which you were prepared to reveal in a 
solemn wav at an appointed hour. The hour and the man arrived on 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


143 


Tuesday, the 10th of March, 1868, and the artificial noble, nick-named, 
Lord Mayo, disclosed the mysterious secret. He unfolded the Irish 
policy of your Government, which I have already very slightly reviewed. 
And here I may now pause to remark that there was a second course 
which your Government might have adopted with, at least, perfect 
consistency. You might have metaphysically defended the existing 
state of things. It was to this conclusion that the whole of Lord Mayo’s 
speech led up. But this would have been hare-faced Toryism, and oi 
all things that your Ministry most dreads, there is nothing so bad^ in 
your eyes as to be thought Tory. On every point you and your Col¬ 
leagues talk a sort of set Tory jargon in order to please your own paity, 
and then give up finally, by a sort of side-wind, all the principles on 
which Toryism rests. If the existing law of Soil-Lord and tenant 
works perfectly well in Ireland, which was what Lord Mayo _ attempted 
to show, what justification can there be tor the little, peddling, unoei- 
tain, vague changes in it, which he proposed and promised to introduce 
when he can but see how they can be drafted ? If you and your Col¬ 
leagues think the Irish State Church a gooci thing, or a thing which, 
whether good or bad in itself, must, from considerations of Toiyhonoi 
or Tory policy, be resolutely supported—Why do you not boldly say so ? 
The cause is very obvious, because to do this would be to destroy the 
character of vour Government as being “ truly liberal .” The policy ol 
your Government about Ireland is really this “ As to the land, every - 
thinrf is riyht as it stands, and the law of Soil-Lord and tenant, which is 
virtually the same as that of England and Scotland on the subject, is per¬ 
fectly just, and works perfectly well; but, as ive confess our general ignorance 
on this and other subjects, we propose to make considerable changes in it, and 
establish considerable differences between the English and the Irish law; and 
ice hope we shall very soon think out what these changes shall be. As to the 
Established Church, we do not know whether it is a good thing or a bad, or 
whether it has got too much money or too little; but we believe it to be an 
institution so beneficial, and one which England is so deeply pledged in 
honor to maintain, that we will maintain it at all hazards until some onecan 
show us a convenient, practicable, and popular mode of abolishing it. lm 
is what your Government calls its Irish policy, and although the senti- 
ments are not such as to call for any particular blame or adverse criti¬ 
cism, being the sentiments which “ truly liberal Tories aie most like y 
to entertain, yet it is not only absurd, but most damaging to youi 
Government, to parade them as a policy. One piece of policy quite 
vour own you did, however, offer. You had a special proposal to 
make,—a boon you were willing to offer to Ireland. You proposed no 
only to give a Charter, but an endowment to a new Catholic Umveisitj. 
Mr Lowe expressed what will be the general feeling when be said that 
this proposal must be taken as nothing more than a firewca*• smt up 
with a splash and a whiz, to look fine for a moment, and then en 
smoke and obscurity. But a Government that can tlimk of nothing 
specially its own, except letting off a rocket of this sort, is a vei 7 PJ 01 
Government. In any other year but this I should confidently add that 
it was a doomed Government, but this is an exceptional time, and con- 
siderations of political convenience will probably induce Parliament to 

let your Ministry linger on. In the second place, no° n g e , wjtecli 
see that the debate has been most damaging to the Irish btate Uiuicii 
Its nolitical position has been completely altered, and how gi eat t 
alteration has°been is obvious, if critics carefully compare the way m 


144 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


which it has been attacked with the way in which it has been defended. 
The days of an institution are over which, when attacked as Mr. Lowe 
attacked the Irish State Church, is defended as Mr. Hardy defended it. 
All that Mr. Hardy. had really to say for it was, that he thought he 
should make out a case against the Liberals with regard to the way 
they had treated it. The Liberals may acknowledge that he succeeded. 
“ The difficulties that would baffle the present Ministry, if they tried to deal 
with the Irish State Church, have baffled a long series off Ministries before. 
Lord LusselVs sudden feverish interest in the Irish Church is a mere partizan 
move. His scheme is a scheme which has found no supporters. A mere 
general denunciation of the Irish Church, without any idea off what to do 
with it, would be calculated to rouse a new and probably dangerous excite¬ 
ment in Ireland." All this may be very true, and if to cast reproach 
on the Whigs was all that was necessary, it would not be altogether 
ineffectual. But it has nothing to do with the real position of the Irish 
Church. Exactly the same arguments were used about Reform: it 
was difficult, it was taken up and let drop as the Whigs thought would 
best suit them ; and so forth. But a Reform Bill was carried, because 
it was felt that the time had come to deal with Reform, and because the 
Tories, with the exception of an isolated politician or two like Mr. Lowe 
and Lord Cranborne, had no courage to defend that which existed. It 
is the same now with the Irish State Church. British statesmen have 
tried honestly and earnestly to ask themselves whether there is still 
anything in their Government of Ireland which is not quite fair, not 
quite what they would themselves like and tolerate. The only thing 
in which so many minds, and so many different minds, seem increas¬ 
ingly disposed to agree, is in disliking the maintenance of a Church 
which is the Church of a very small minority, as an Established 
Church. This is the new, and, as I believe, the fatal danger to the 
Irish State Church. For some cause, or set of causes, into which I 
need not now inquire, British statesmen have, as a matter of fact, 
examined their whole relations to Ireland in a new spirit and with a 
new interest, and they have persuaded themselves that the maintenance 
of the Church of the minority as an Established Church cannot be 
justified. It is because you do not recognize this, or because, recog¬ 
nizing it, you are too much afraid of your own supporters to own 
that you recognize it, that your Ministry in the debate on Ireland has 
seemed so far out of harmony with the state of public feeling which now 
prevails throughout Britain. 

You bewailed, with some apparent ground of justification, your hard 
fate in that before you had been a week in office, the vast long-standing 
Irish question was thrust on you, and was made specially yours, and 
you were called on to settle it. What you meant was, that “ the Irish 
question ,”—as you frankly expressed it in a later part of your speech,— 
“is an artificial question altogether, got up by Mr. Gladstone for his own 
advantage." Now, this is part of the great mistake into which you have 
fallen, on your entrance into a new phase of public life, that you should 
believe that the Irish question is no question at all, and that Mr. Glad¬ 
stone, or any other adroit opponent, could have got it up. It is very 
annoying, and, in a certain sense, hard on your Ministry that, all of a sud¬ 
den, the attention of Britain should be set on Ireland; but as it happens to 
be so set, it is very poor policy to pretend to think lightly of an occasion 
that every one outside your Ministry thinks very grave. Fenianism has 
been in a great measure the cause of this sudden turning of men’s 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


145 


thoughts to Ireland, hut Fenianism would have no effect whatever, if, 
when it forced British statesmen and Reformers to think of Ireland, 
it had not seemed to them that there was much matter for anxious 
reflection, and that changes must he made in the policy of England 
towards Ireland which honest men cannot he easy without trying to 
get made. It is exactly as it was with Reform. Mr. Beales and his 
friends, and the moh that pulled down the railings, were considered hy 
the Tories as contemptible as Fenianism, but they were very powerful 
agents in getting the Reform Bill passed, because when they made men 
previously passive, or ignorant, or obstinate, think about Reform, they 
saw that the arguments for Reform could not be further resisted. For 
four long nights the House of the Common men has discussed the 
causes of the condition of Ireland, and the general result is that Par¬ 
liament has decided that there is something wrong in the state of Ire¬ 
land which comes within the duty and power of the Imperial Legisla¬ 
ture to remedy. A Statesman would have recognized the growth and the 
justice of the feeling, and would have tried to direct, to modify, and 
to utilize it. It is hard on you that, when other Prime Ministers have 
gone on for years without being found out, you should have been so 
unlucky as to have had your statesmanship tested at the very outset of 
your tenure of office. Of the mode in which your Ministry have, in fact, 
dealt with the great question brought before them it is impossible to 
speak too strongly. First of all you declared that you had a great 
policy as regards Ireland; then you had to confess that this policy lay 
in a Bill about land, something like a Bill which Lord Mayo failed to 
pass, and in endowing a Catholic University and leveling up, by which 
every one in the Plouse understood,—and, I believe, was meant to be 
understood,—the general endowment of the Catholic clergy. Quailing 
before the contempt and indignation this latter proposal elicited, you 
very soon threw over Lord Mayo, as you used to throw over your nine* 
pins last Session. You still, indeed, talk mysteriously of making pro* 
vision for the Catholic priests, which is not to consist in paying ; but 
you fall back on the Tory party, and the old Tory policy of keeping up 
the Irish Established Church as an emblem of Tory ascendency, and, as 
what its admirers term, the best garrison of Ireland. l T ou have been 
driven to this by Mr. Gladstone, for you had not nerve or statesman¬ 
ship enough to lead the movement for a new Liberal policy towards 
Ireland, nor could you be sure of your own party if you had made the 
attempt. In order, therefore, to have a position which you could call 
your own, and could give you a tenable basis in a party fight, you sud¬ 
denly determined to resist the movement altogether. You appealed 
to the convictions and interests of the English clergy, and to the 
partizan fervor of the Irish Protestants. As a leader of a party you 
were right. If you were not to act the part of a statesman, and over¬ 
awe your followers by bidding them follow the voice of the Nation, the 
best thing you could do was to consolidate your party, and settle your¬ 
self firmly in the leadership of it, by appealing to its old Tory tradi¬ 
tions and beliefs. As the head of the party opposed to concessions to 
the Irish Roman Catholics at the expense of the Church Establish¬ 
ment, you immediately occupy a position of great strength and im¬ 
portance. You. cease virtually, however, to be the Prime Minister of 
Britain, but you become a very powerful leader.of Opposition to the 
progress of the application of Justice. Any proposal to deal with the 
Irish State Church will be sure to awake much jealousy, bigotry, and 


I 


146 the sharp spear and flaming sword of 

suspicion ; and no one knows better than you do liow to take advantage 
of this, and make it an instrument of discomfiture to your adversaries. 
And no one who is convinced that the Irish State Church must go and 
ought to go, but who realizes all the practical difficulties that have to 
be encountered, can fail to perceive how many opportunities for attack 
will be given by Mr. Gladstone if he has to carry such a proposal in 
face of your Opposition. That Mr. Gladstone should have spoken out 
plainly on the question of the Irish Church Establishment was most 
desirable. It would have been probably better if the question of the 
Irish State Church had been remitted to a new Parliament, and Mr. 
Gladstone had not in any way dealt with it until he could deal 
with it as the Prime Minister of Britain. But the great blunders 
of your Ministry rendered this impossible. After the revelation of 
what Lord Mayo called his policy, it was quite necessary that the 
leader of the Liberal party should show distinctly that he has a policy 
of his own,—a policy that he could call on his followers to support, 
and the Nation to approve. It may be fairly urged, however, that Mr. 
Gladstone ought to have given grounds for his new convictions ; but, 
as he has arrived at them, if he had not spoken on the last night of the 
debate so as to make his party feel that they could rely on him as a 
leader, the days of his leadership would have been over. There is no 
blame whatever to be attached to him, therefore, for taking a strong 
line about the Irish State Church. On the contrary, Reformers are 
very glad to get back to an era in politics when men think what they 
have got to say, and then say boldly what they mean. And even 
though it should be urged as a reproach to him that he says now what 
he has never said so strongly or so plainly before, it may be replied that 
he never spoke as he spoke on the last night of the Irish debate, 
because, probably, he had not himself advanced so far until he felt 
himself impelled by the force of a general movement, and still more 
because it would have been useless to have stirred the subject before pub¬ 
lic opinion throughout the entire Nation was ripe enough to give him 
the probability of success. The time had come on Monday night, the 
16tli of March, 1868, and he only said what it was quite necessary he 
should say, as a leader of his party, and as a statesman properly 
aspiring to guide the action of the Nation. But it was a very different 
thing to give notice of a regular Reforming move as a formal Resolution 
on the Irish State Church. This Resolution can do no more than 
enable him to win a temporary triumph over your Ministry, which, 
even if lie wins it, will it is to be feared, seriously add to the great 
difficulties he will have to encounter when he comes to lay a proposal 
for dealing with the Irish State Church before Parliament, as the 
Prime Minister of Britain. That before very long some proposal of 
the sort will not only be submitted to Parliament, but adopted by it, 
I do not doubt; and the Liberal party may probably be brought to 
unite on this question, and any point to which the Liberal party firmly 
and seriously adheres is sure to be carried in time. No mistakes which 
Mr. Gladstone or any one else can make can save much longer a reli¬ 
gious institution for which its friends have nothing to say except that 
it is a good sort of political garrison. But all religious controversies 
are bitter, and the controversies which the coming fate of the Irish 
State Church will evoke will be especially bitter, because they affect 
the private fortunes of so many individuals. It was, therefore, espe¬ 
cially important to approach the subject of the Irish Church Establish- 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


147 

ment in a calm conciliatory way; and, above all tilings to avoid the 
imputation that a sudden desire to abolish it was not inspired by the 
love of Justice, or of Ireland, but by a paltry partizan ambition. It 
is the opinion of many Reformers that,—“ If Mr. Gladstone had 
merely uttered a strong declaration of his views on the last night of 
debate, and taken occasion to renew and amplify this declaration, and 
given some general indication of his views on the Irish Church when 
the question of Chartering and endowing the Catholic Universities is 
brought on, he would have been in a better position than he will be 
if the Resolution is carried. To have dealt gently with the English 
clergy, and to have convinced them slowly that they must look to the 
general good of the Empire, and to have suggested to them that, after 
all, it cannot be good policy to insist that a sound constitution shall 
be bound up with a rotten one, would have been wiser than to provoke 
alarm, and irritate them, by bringing forward a Resolution.” Strange 
to say, “ in prudence , in the readiness to conciliate , in a combination of 
earnestness and breadth of view, Mr. Gladstone was, in this Irish debate ,” 
according to the expressed opinion of the same Reformers, “ far sur- 
2 )assed by Mr. Bright.” You, with'a worse case in your hands, often 
win party victories over Mr. Gladstone, but you find Mr. Bright far 
more difficult to deal with. Mr. Bright’s land scheme occupied only a 
comparatively small portion of his speech; and although he has not, 
as yet, removed some of the practical objections that may be made to 
some parts of it, he has shown that, if it would do any good at all, its 
mode of working would not be revolutionary. But it was the general 
tone of his speech, the noble feelings it indicated, and the amount of 
reflection which was apparent in it, that gave it its air of superiority. 
Above all, it showed that Mr. Bright is capable of making an honest 
attempt to understand and consider the position, views, and interests 
of persons with whom he disagrees. It will be curious, but it is 
by no means improbable, that when the next Liberal Ministry is 
formed,—which, to deserve the name, must now include Mr. Bright,— 
it will find in Mr. Bright’s disposition to look on great questions 
as questions for the people and the Empire, a counterbalance that 
will be much needed against Mr. Gladstone’s burning wish to 
engage in party fights, and his tendency to see in certain public 
questions a battle-ground where he may try his intellectual strength 
against a political opponent. 

Whatever may have been the case once, Ireland can certainly no 
longer complain of being neglected. Her grievances, her sufferings, her 
claims too long denied, her attractions too much ignored, constitute 
the topic of the day. All the eloquence and statesmanship of the 
British Parliament have been for a week -engaged in discussing how 
her wants are to be satisfied^, her wounds to be healed, her people 
rendered happy and prosperous, and the twin curses of misery and 
disaffection banished from her shores. On to-morrow evening, there 
will be a further variation on the same theme ; for the Irish Reform 
Bill, although it may provoke the strongest and most diverse criticism, 
is in itself simply another contribution to those measures for benefiting 
Ireland which the Government will propose and the Legislature discuss. 
But while the Senate of the Nation thus proclaims its desire to make 
amends for a wasted past, Royalty also steps forward to take its share 
in the performance of a gracious and beneficent duty. The appearance 
of the Prince of Wales as Chairman at the annual dinner of the 


K 


148 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


Benevolent Society of St. Patrick* would at any time liavo been a 
pleasing event, and especially to the adorers of State Idols ; but on 
the present occasion it has a far deeper significance than an act of 
mere patronage to a deserving charity. It must be taken in conjunc¬ 
tion with his approaching visit to Dublin, as a proof of that goodwill 
towards Ireland which is entertained by those whose high social posi¬ 
tion gives them great power. Though, with respect to political matters, 
the practice of a constitutional State like ours imposes reserve on the 
Sovereign, a Prince of the real Blood Royal is not debarred from all 
interference in public affairs, and I for one welcome the legitimate 
influence which may be properly wielded by the eldest son of the good 
Lady the Queen of Britain. That veneration which a noble name, a 
historic lineage, and the prospects of a brilliant future will generally 
excite, may be turned to beneficent uses even with us practical politi¬ 
cians, who can occasionally relish the sunshine of Royal smiles, the 
grace of kindly spoken words, the free dispensation of Queenly largesse ; 
but in Ireland personal influence exercises a much greater sway than 
in any other part of the Queendom. There “the divinity that doth 
hedge a King” or a Queen challenges all respect ; the sovereign is the 
great fountain of favors as well as of honors ; the Throne symbolizes 
open-handed bounty not less than Imperial strength. Since, therefore, 
the Prince of Wales, as the representative of his Royal mother, and 
as the individual who will one day occupy the British Throne, has 

* Society of St. Patrick.—London, Tuesday, March 17, 1868.—Last night, 
His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales presided at the eiglity-fifth anniversary 
festival of the Benevolent Society of St. Patrick, at Willis’s Rooms. Amongst 
those present were the Archbishop of Armagh, the Bishop of Derry, the Marquis 
of Clanricarde, the Earl of Cork, the Earl of Darnley, the Earl of Devon, the Earl 
of Clanwilliam, the Earl of Arran, the Earl of Erne, the Earl of Kimberley, Lord 
Longford, the Earl of Mayo, Viscount Hawarden, Viscount Lifford, Lord Dufferin, 
Viscount Hamilton, Lord Claud Hamilton, Right Hon. T. L. Corry, First Lord of 
the Admiralty ; Mr. C. Fortescue, M.P.; the Right Hon. James A. Lawson, M.P.; 
Major-General Dunne, M.P. ; and the Attorney-General for Ireland. The Arch¬ 
bishop of Armagh, in proposing “ The health of Her Royal Highness the Princess 
of Wales and other members of the Royal Family,” expressed a hope that on an 
early day her Royal Highness would be so far restored to vigorous health as to be 
able to pay a visit to the Emerald Isle. He was quite sure that she would there 
receive a welcome not less generous and cordial than that which had been accorded 
to her on her arrival on the shores of England. His Royal Highness the Prince of 
Wales, in reply, said that the Princess was intensely anxious to visit Ireland, and 
he was always looking forward to the time when the Princess and himself could 
together make a journey through the sister country. In response to the toast of 
“ The Army and Navy and Volunteers,” the First Lord of the Admiralty said that 
a contingent of the Channel Fleet would accompany his Royal Highness the Prince 
of Wales on his approaching visit to Ireland, and would (weather permitting) be 
anchored in Dublin Bay whilst the Prince of Wales was the guest of the Lord 
Lieutenant. In proposing the toast of the evening—“ Success and Prosperity to 
the Benevolent Society of St. Patrick”—his Royal Highness stated that one of the 
first patrons of the institution was his grandfather, the Duke of Kent. Having- 
enumerated the objects and sketched the progress of the society, his Royal Highness 
said that the festival at which he had the honor to preside that evening might be 
regarded as a national re-union, where Irishmen of all shades of politics might meet 
together for the promotion of their mutual interests without political allusions or 
the exhibition of religious predilections. The Earl of Mayo, in responding to the 
toast of “ Prosperity to Ireland,” said that there was never a time at which all 
classes of the community entertained a more sincere, ardent, and intense desire to 
promote the interests of the sister island. He assured those whom he had the 
honor to address, that his Royal Highness, on his approaching visit, would receive 
a most enthusiastic welcome from the people of Ireland. The proceedings through¬ 
out were of the most interesting and harmonious character. 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


149 


come forward to express liis personal liking for tlie Irisli people, his 
admiration ot their country, and his wish to know them better, he 
will meet with no faint or grudging welcome. St. Patrick’s Day at 
Willis s Dooms, with a Royal Prince in the chair, and a splendid 
banquet in the foreground, with guests, children, uniforms, speeches, 
and music racy of the soil, is a sight to gratify all patriotic Irishmen. 
But the brilliant spectacle on Tuesday evening only faintly foreshadows 
what next month will witness in the capital of the Emerald Isle. The 
first announcement of the Prince’s intended visit excited an enthusiasm 
on this side of St. George’s Channel which showed how deep-seated 
and genuine is the sentiment of loyalty in Irish Brains, and how easily 
the affections of those Brains may be won, notwithstanding a passing 
estrangement. The accounts which every day sends from Ireland 
must prove that it is not only the familiar gala sights of Dublin which 
will await the Prince of Wales ; he will witness a grander spectacle in 
the rejoicing of. a people who are to keep holiday in his honor. The 
programme which has been arranged from Easter Tuesday onwards, 
is certainly as attractive as the most devoted sightseer can desire. 
What with a squadron of ironclads in Dublin Bay, awaking with their 
tremendous salvoes loud echoes from the Wicklow Mountains, what 
with a State procession to the Castle, visits to the Puncliestown Races 
and romantic Powerscourt, reviews in the world-renowned Fifteen 
Acres, stately ceremonials in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, flower-shows, 
addresses, balls, and suppers galore , and no doubt a colossal bonfire on 
the Hill of Howtli, the joyous hosts will have a happy time of it in 
heaping up welcomes for their illustrious guest. Will any one sneer 
at these gay doings as worthy only of children, as so many glittering 
shams, the mere surface-sparkle of popular excitement, which will pass 
away and leave no trace ? I must answer, that the festive celebrations 
will be redeemed from all touch of triviality by the genuine enthusiasm 
which will inspire them. The people of Dublin dearly love a brilliant 
show; but they know very well that the sights of next month will be 
resplendent, not so much for what they are in themselves as for what 
they symbolize. They are the frontispiece to a new chapter in Irish 
history ; and the long and weary tale of disaffection, misery, and in¬ 
justice will be eclipsed by the first pages that commence the happier 
annals inaugurated by the Royal presence. The people of Ireland have 
been told lately, with an earnestness which they cannot possibly mis¬ 
take, that the Parliament of the Empire has determined to redress 
their wrongs. But the complaints which are sent from Ireland to 
England refer not merely to material grievances ; they also include 
the wounded sentiment that is born of unmerited neglect. To neither 
are developed Statesmen now indifferent. The debate which closed on last 
Monday night affords ample proof that such evils as can be cured by 
legislation will not be permitted to exist much longer, and the rankling 
sense of inferiority, of being kept subordinate to other portions of the 
Queendom, of languishing, as it were, in the shade while happier 
districts bask in the sunshine of Royal favor, will, I hope, be effectually 
removed by a visit that may end in transforming a Prince of the true 
Royal Blue Blood from a casual traveler to a resident and neighbor. 
All the circumstances, then, attending the journey of the Prince of 
Wales to Dublin, and the plain intimation conveyed in his own 
language at the banquet on Tuesday, the 17tli current, lead us to 
anticipate that Ireland will henceforth be treated, not as a remote and 


150 


THE SHAKP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


scarcely accessible part of the Queen’s dominions, but as an integral 
portion, to become not less familiar than England to those who stand 
near the Throne. The happy effects of such a change are more likely 
to be under-estimated than to be exaggerated. The frequent residence 
of a member of the Royal family in Ireland would have a healing 
influence on faction itself; so long as the people must have expensive 
State Idols to adore and worship. The Viceroy is necessarily the 
representative of a party or a faction; although Lord Abercorn has 
won the esteem and regard of all parties, by his public spirit, his dig¬ 
nified frankness, and his geniality, he would himself be the first to 
acknowledge that he cannot give to the people that which they have 
craved, the countenance of Royalty itself. From all taint of partizan- 
ship, however, a Prince of the Royal House is supposed to be wholly 
free. He is above the schemings of time-serving politicians or the 
hatreds of rival sects, and in his presence the most envenomed oppo¬ 
nents may meet as on neutral ground. The Archbishop of Dublin and 
Cardinal Cullen can alike stand, without the fear of having wrong 
motives imputed to either, before the Son of that Sovereign who claims 
allegiance from them all. If the visit were only an isolated act of 
State policy, such gratifying influences might be too short-lived to 
have any permanent effect; but the important distinction between the 
present and previous cases is, that it introduces a complete change of 
practice. The Prince of Wales, at the banquet on Tuesday, expressed 
in warm terms his affection for the country, and his resolution to 
befriend it. “If,” he said, “ this visit should tend to give pleasure to 
the people of Ireland, I hope there may be a longer visit hereafter.” 
That the new course will be carried out systematically I can fully 
believe. That the Prince will steer clear of those quicksands which 
in a country where party spirit runs so high, are at hand to engulf the 
unwary, his conduct hitherto forbids me to doubt. In the meantime, 
I am content to leave the rest to the generous enthusiasm of the Irish 
people themselves, whose impressionable natures will eagerly respond 
to the frank courtesy displayed by the heir to the British Crown. 
Whether a general amnesty for political offences were to be announced 
or not would not much matter. Fenianism would be disarmed of all 
power for mischief from the very moment that the son of the British 
Sovereign applied himself to the task of winning the affections of her 
subjects in this island, by the resistless influences of soothing 
sympathy and considerate kindness. 

I should be the last to pretend that Royal visits, however gracious 
or often repeated, could in the least degree supply the place of Justice 
to the Irish ; yet I am heartily glad to learn that in all probability the 
Princess of Wales will accompany the Prince, her husband, to Ire¬ 
land. Let Reformers not be mistaken for a moment; this determina¬ 
tion, I repeat, full of kindness and meaning as it is, has no bearing 
upon the necessity to pass those laws which Ireland wants, and to 
relieve her from the ancient tyrannies which wither her prosperity and 
oppress her conscience. It is rather because the Princess will go as a 
fair and illustrious ambassadress from the English people, that the 
resolve is welcome. To some races of men it would be labor lost to 
say such a thing, or to give the grounds why I hope for the best results 
from this apparently simple act of Royal courtesy and interest. But 
of all races in the world the Irish people are the least likely to miss 
the inner sentiment contained in a piece of grateful good feeling. They 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


151 


do not belong to the dull stolid breeds of mankind who cannot extract 
from a little sign of perfect friendship large and pleasant conclusions. 
Theirs is the country par excellence of gallantry and of a chivalrous 
estimate, of bright eyes and warm feminine affections—a country where 
a lady s smile passes as current as gold, and lights up Paddy’s mind 
like Summer sunshine. If he was gratified at all, therefore, to know 
that the Queen’s son would soon be coming over to stay in Ireland a 
little, and to see for himself her hopes and sorrows, her smiles and 
tears, the Irishman will be still better pleased to hear that this “jewel 
of a Princess” is to bear the Heir of the British Crown company. I 
should not presume to tell a master in the soft art of “ sootherin’’ like 
Paddy, what such a visit is to mean. Nobody has affections which 
beat so quickly to the true voice of kindness, or which is so ready to 
soften when mild and beautiful eyes look upon him and wish him well 
out of all his “tlirouble.” That is what the Princess will go to do, 
though it need not be said in so many words. She will not pretend 
that she has any direct authority over the lawmakers, or that the balls, 
reviews, and “ purty gineral doings,” consequent upon her arrival, will 
turn all the Irish bogs green with barley, or make the butter come 
sooner in the Kerry churns. But she does know that kind thoughts 
count for a good deal with Irishmen, and that they have their own 
part and power even in the affairs of nations. She is quite right in 
thinking that Ireland will take this visit exactly as it is meant, and be 
glad to see a face which, in its brightness and goodwill, is an omen to 
the land, I hope, of the days that are to come, when the black and 
bitter days shall be quite forgotten. And though I would not for a 
moment exaggerate the effect of Boyal visits, yet it seems to me that 
there is quite a new and most noble function indicated here for Queens 
and Princesses. They are, in the affairs of life, like poetry as compared 
with prose—like music as compared with plain speech. They can say 
or imply gracious things which Kings or Princes cannot, without the 
impeachment of masculine traditions and etiquettes. We can show 
our goodwill to a friend by giving him a flower; and in the Royal 
demonstration of goodwill, the Princess is like the flower ; for her pre¬ 
sence means so much that everybody can understand, and conveys the 
meaning in such a pleasant and welcome manner. There never prob¬ 
ably was a greater blunder made in the world’s history than in the 
establishment of a Salic law. That a gallant and spirited Nation like 
the French should have adopted it only shows how much the genius 
of a people may be thwarted by the errors of their rulers. The evi¬ 
dence is almost all against the principle. Monarchies usually prosper 
most when a woman wears the diadem. It was a Maria Theresa who 
evoked the patriotism of Hungary as if by magic, a Catharine the 
Great who completed Russia, a Queen of Sheba who introduced the 
worship of the “ one God” to Africa. The British people have never 
had better times than under their Queens: the reigns of Elizabeth, of 
Anne, and of Victoria are bright Oases of British annals. If I were not 
afraid of Mr. Attorney-General and of a process for “misprision of trea¬ 
son,” I should be almost inclined to recommend a reversal of the Salic 
law in this realm, and in all others which have similar institutions, so 
that the throne might always be occupied by a female Sovereign. For 
it is very obvious that the feeling of loyalty is far more natural— 
that the stiff knees of men bend far more pleasantly—when the sove¬ 
reignty of the sex is added to the sovereignty of the scepter. If the Irish 


152 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


fire a little sore and angry at the long delays of justice, they cannot and 
will not refuse the warmest welcome to their Princess. “ The sound 
of her foot,” one of their songs runs, “ said a hundred swate things 
and merely by landing on the shores of Erin, her Royal Highness can 
put into gentle smiles, and the grace of her good and pleasant counte¬ 
nance, messages which even you—our Literary Prime Minister—might 
bite your pen for a month before you could get neatly printed in the 
preamble of a bill, or the Speech at the opening of Parliament. I 
anticipate for the Princess Alexandra a new conquest of the country, 
which, by its brilliant rapidity, "will help us all to forget Strongbow 
and Cromwell, and the other sad reminiscences. A gentler task or a 
more worthy no Royal lady ever undertook, and none has been, by her 
virtues and good name, more qualified to undertake the mission. If 
the Princess he enabled to undertake the journey, she will in reality 
have entered the diplomatic service, and she will go as the envoy of 
British goodwill to the Irish people. “ Her Excellency” the Princess 
would take to Dublin the message of a fixed intention on the part of 
Britain to make firm and lasting peace with Ireland. She would not 
exactly say so ; for, again, to quote a national lyric, “ why should she 
he throubled with hard spellin’ in the matter, when the m’aning was 
so plain that ’twas said by half a smile ?” “ Her Excellency” would 

go at a time when the light of great hopes and of perfect justice is 
breaking like a true “ sunburst” over the Green Island, and when the 
foremost statesman in Britain declares by word and deed that “justice 
delayed is justice denied.” Here, therefore, would he an earnest mes¬ 
sage of concord and goodwill, sent by the highest and gentlest ambas¬ 
sadress that could possibly take it. It is a thousand pities that Tom 
Moore can’t be spared a little while from Elysium to write us an “ Irish 
melody” that might do musical justice to the occasion. However, his 
affectionate and gallant countrymen would do justice to the event, and 
would, without the least taint of servility, render to the fair conqueror 
the full tribute of spontaneous gratitude. For the future, when poli¬ 
ticians go over the list of Irish Reformers, beyond question they should 
have to include—and high up, too, in the patriotic catalogue—the 
name of our gentle British Princess, who traveled by sea and land to 
say for us, in a language which all Ireland learns to comprehend, from 
the violet eyes and sw r eet faces of its own daughters, the errand of good¬ 
will and the message of kindly purposes. 

Before I conclude the present lengthy letter, I claim, in the 
responsible capacity of your Voluntary and Unpaid Political Educator, 
the right, urgently to press the question on your attention :—“ What 
are, apparently, the principal results of the late great Irish Debate” ? 

One result of the great Irish debate is, that the Irish Church shall 
be ultimately disestablished. This is announced most emphatically by 
the Times , which cannot he considered a purely Liberal organ, devoted 
to Mr. Gladstone and his party. That journal has generally taken up 
a position independent of both the Tory and Liberal connexions, some¬ 
times leaning to one and then to the other, and during the last two 
years far more favorable personally to you than to Mr. Gladstone. It 
is, however, the Times that, to the dismay of the Tories, tells ihem the 
disestablishment of the Irish Church “is as certain as any event can 
be that has not yet come to pass.” They were just as surprised in 
1846 when that journal announced, after Sir Robert Peel’s conversion 
to the principles of Free Trade, and his determination to give effect to 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


158 


this policy, that “the Corn Laws were clone for.’’ Protectionists 
rushed about in 1846 assuring one another that the repeal of the Corn 
Laws would not take place ; but the Corn Laws were really “ done 
for” then ; and, attempt to deny the truth as the Irish Tories now 
may, the Established Church in Ireland is “ done for.” Reformers have 
but to look at the arguments used in its defence by yourself, and you 
are, as no person would think of denying, a very clever and dexterous 
man of your kind—to he convinced that the Establishment in this 
country cannot be maintained. “ There is no person,” writes the 
Times , “ better assured of this than Mr. Disraeli.” His speech fully 
confirms this statement. He did not attempt for one moment to 
defend the Establishment on its merits. But in these days, a Church 
that cannot he defended on its merits cannot be defended at all. The 
man who, in 1844, declared the Establishment to be an alien Church, 
and who, in seeking to do away with some of the effects of what he said, 
could not, last Monday, hut admit on his “ historical conscience,” 
that the observations were just, is scarcely in a position to make a 
good defence of this old, but not venerable, institution. What is, 
according to your conception, the ideal of a national Church, and how 
does the Irish Establishment correspond with this ideal ? You do not 
trouble yourself with the doctrines which a national Church may profess 
to teach. That you consider to be a question of no moment. “ The 
condition,” you said, “ in which I should wish to see a national Church 
would be this—that the whole population of the country should be in 
communion with it.” It follows, plainly enough, from these words 
that a national Church, with which not one-half nor one-tentli ol the 
people of Ireland is really in communion, is not in the condition in which 
even you would wish to see a national Church. Such a Church, after a 
trial of three hundred years, is, in fact, self-condemned. According 
to your own principle, it logically follows that the Church of a very 
small minority ought not to be the national Church. It may be set 
up as an Establishment; it maybe called “national;” but it esta¬ 
blishes nothing but its own injustice, and to the title of national it can 
have no warrantable pretensions. Had the policy which Lord Mayo 
announced been at all acceptable, it is probable that British public 
opinion would not have pronounced itself so decidedly for the removal 
of the Irish Establishment. When, however, it became manifest that 
your Ministry had really no intention of grappling with any acknow¬ 
ledged grievance, and that your sole object was to perpetuate the 
existence of the Establishment by prodigal bounties to other Churches 
out of the public purse, the very revulsion of public feeling which was 
excited by the proposed establishment of a Catholic University, the 
increase of the Iler/ium Donum grant, and the implied endowment ol 
the Catholic Church on the principle of equality, led by a natural 
process to the consideration whether the Irish Establishment, as a 
State Church, was worth preserving under such conditions. When 
this issue was fairly presented, the great body of the intelligent classes 
appears to have come with a suddenness which has caused some sur¬ 
prise, to the conclusion that it was better to take away the exceptional 
privileges of the Establishment in Ireland, and to leave all Churches 
thus on a common level, instead of engaging in the hopeless and prodigal 
task of raising other Churches to the elevation of the btate Chinch. 
Your speech was partly an attempt to explain away some of Lord 
Mayo’s proposals. The result was that you rendered your hearers 


154 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


more perplexed than they were before. It became quite evident that 
the Ministers knew not what they were doing ; that they contradicted 
themselves and each other; and, as legislators for Ireland, were quite 
unworthy of public confidence. No proposal was more explicit than 
that of the Chief-Secretary, to establish a Catholic University with 
money of the State for a building, professors, scholarships, and even 
prospective colleges. Lord Mayo’s words are on record. You, how¬ 
ever, boldly denied on Monday night, the 16th current, that anything 
had been said about an endowunent. According to your idea, the thing 
was a mere “fleabite,”—some eight thousand a year or so,—such as 
the London University received, but nothing more. The only certain 
features in your policy are the recklessness with which schemes are 
brought forward, the suddenness with which they are withdrawn, and 
the audacity with which the ordinary meaning of plain words is denied. 
After all that Lord Mayo had said, you left it to he understood that 
you would be satisfied with the grant of a charter to the Catholic 
University, and that with regard to any endowment, the House might 
take what course it pleased. You were, liow r ever, openly defending 
“ the principle of endowments.” You declared yourself on the side of 
endowment, just as you had formerly announced yourself on the side 
of the angels. There can he no question that Lord Mayo’s prox^osal 
for an endowed denominational university, and his hint of an increase 
of the Hegium Donum, with his acknowledgment that religious equality 
must somehow or other be produced in Ireland, did bring up the whole 
question of endowments for religious purposes in this country. But 
it is ridiculous to maintain that the principle of all religious endow¬ 
ments is involved in the maintenance of the Irish Establishment as 
the State Church. The most sincere supporters of the Church of 
England, and of the principle of endowments, in a country where there 
may not be very decided religious divisions, can most logically and 
conscientiously disapprove of the Irish Establishment. After you had, 
with your usual wearisome reiteration, endeavored to persuade your 
audience that in defending the Establishment you were defending all 
endowments and the “ juinciple of religion itself,” you intimated before 
you concluded your speech, that there must he some great change in 
the condition of the Irish Catholic clergy, but not on the principle of 
endowments. “ I believe,” you said, “ that the time is fast approach¬ 
ing when there must be a great change in the status of the unendowed 
clergy ; but I am not in favor of paying the Irish priests.” People have 
since been asking what you could mean. You refused to say, declaring 
that you were, at least, as explicit as your opponents, and forgetting that 
you and your colleagues, as Ministers, were supposed to he announcing 
a policy. All that is clear, amid such a wilderness of contradiction, is 
that your, our new Prime Minister’s Irish policy has been unequivocally 
condemned, and that you know not what to do, hut gratify your un¬ 
compromising Tory supporters by maintaining the Irish Church at any 
cost. You are driven with the Church you undertake to defend into 
the last ditch. It is almost useless to try to construct any intelligible 
policy from the utterances of a Minister who asserts that a perfect 
national Church ought to have all the people in communion with it, 
and yet that so very imperfect a national Church as one in which hut 
one-twelfth part of the people is in communion with it ought to be 
maintained; who defends such a Church on “the principle of endow¬ 
ments,” and then asserts that religious equality is to be effected, and a 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


155 


great cliange produced in the status of the unendowed Catholic clergy, 
hut not according to the principle of endowments. You would appa¬ 
rently set up three different Establishments here, and give the heads 
of these Churches seats in the gilded House of the Lords, while still 
preserving the endowments of the Protestant Episcopalian Establish¬ 
ment to itself “ on the principle of endowments.” But, if the principle 
he good for one of these Churches, it must, according to your argument, 
he good for the others. Religious equality can scarcely he produced 
if “the principle of endowments,” which is defended as universal in 
its application, is not to apply to the religion of four millions and a 
half of the Irish people out of six millions. You know well enough 
that you are in a false position. You cannot give up the Irish Esta¬ 
blishment ; and your endeavor to defend it, in language which may 
not seem utterly contrary to the intelligence of the age, only leads you 
into a maze of absurdities. Mr. Gladstone, is however, determined to 
lose no time in carrying into effect the pledge he gave on this question 
last Monday night. He intends, I have learned from good authority, 
to give notice soon of a Resolution condemnatory of the Irish Establish¬ 
ment. The struggle, therefore, round this doomed Church will be at 
once begun, and will never cease until the “conscience” of the Nation 
and not merely your “ historical conscience,” is relieved by the removal 
of this monument of ascendency and injustice. Instead of uniting, it 
has kept the Irish people divided ; and the only hope of union and of 
religious equality consists in its removal. 

I am, dear sir, your voluntary and unpaid political Educator for 

the time being, 

- John Scott. 


LETTER VIII. 

Belfast, 59, Victoria Terrace, 
March 2 5th, 1868. 

The Right Hon. B. Disraeli, Prime 
Minister of Britain. 

Dear Sir, —At question-time in the House of the Common men on 
the evening of Thursday, the 19th current, it was, amongst otliei 
things, ascertained: that the law-officers of the Crown know nothing 
of any arrangement in certain parishes by which owners of small tene¬ 
ments collect the rates from their tenants and pay them to thepaioclnal 
authorities for a consideration ; that the further proceeding with the 
Scotch Reform Bill will he postponed until after the second reading of 
that for Ireland ; and that the Budget will probably be produced on 
the first Thursday after the Easter recess. Considerable interest was, 
as usual, exhibited when you were being asked the. date at which the 
said vacation would commence, and there was a simultaneous groan, 
followed by pathetic cries of « No, no,” when you stated that you 
should have to ask the House to sit m Passion-week. The demonstra¬ 
tion was so serious that you were fain to intimate that you would 
reconsider the matter. On going into Committee of Supply, i. 
White, at great length, and with his special energy, brought forward a 
motion—to which I will again refer— which would, m effect, bind 
the House to re-erect the compound householder m Ins pristine posi¬ 
tion. The honorable gentleman took Brighton for his principal 
point of departure, and stated cases there and elsewaere of gieat 



I 


156 THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 

hardship, which would culminate eventually in the disfranchise¬ 
ment of a large number of those to whom the Suffrage was extended 
last year. He also gave specimens of his research into the principle of 
the matter, quoting a Prime Minister of the last century and a Chief 
Justice of the earlier part of this ! Experience at Walsall seems to 
have induced Mr. Charles Forster to second the motion : which, 
though not supported by Mr. Ayrton, was discussed by him as involv¬ 
ing a case of grievance in many parishes. The case of Birmingham 
■was lengthily and energetically argued by Mr. Dixon ; and, as the 
debate went on, it seemed to be admitted, even by Mr. Henley and 
Mr. Goschen, that the change in the law had put pressure, more or less 
severe, on persons who have hitherto been compounders. Borne mem¬ 
bers, like Lord Henley, were for giving more time for experience of the 
new law before any change w r as made in it, while others, of whom Mr. 
Sandford was a type, demanded immediate action, and took the oppor¬ 
tunity of giving the Government some of the “ other kind of personal 
rating but few or any appeared ready to vote for the motion. The 
debate was dwindling so decidedly that an appearance on the part of 
the Government was desirable ; so Mr. Hardy pronounced that it would 
be unsatisfactory to move in the matter while a committee was actually 
to consider the whole subject of rating; and even, Mr. Gladstone, 
though considering that prompt measures must be taken by Parliament 
to give the class of voters in question the benefit of the Franchise 
without existing inconveniences, being of a like opinion, at his request 
Mr. White withdrew the motion. Everything else was so rapidly 
cleared away, that soon after ten o’clock there was quite opportunity 
for Lord Mayo to introduce the Irish Reform Bill. The Franchise 
part of it was soon disposed of; for the proposal is simply to leave the 
present £12 rating occupation County Franchise as it is, and to reduce 
the Borough qualification from £8, at which it now stands, to £4. By 
this there would be an addition to the existing number of voters of 
9,800. The Lodger Franchise would be extended to Ireland. In 
reference to the redistribution of seats, he argued up to a proposition to 
give fuller representation in Counties only ; and this it w T as intended to 
do by asking certain Boroughs to give up some of their more or less 
superfluous members. Strict political justice w r ouid be done in the 
scheme of disfranchisement. It was also stated that there was to be a 
Boundary Commission for Ireland. There was a little hubbub after 
the close of Lord Mayo’s speech, but not exactly any excitement. To 
be sure, some Irish members, Dr. Brady to wit, complained that, even 
in a Reform Bill, regulation for Ireland differed from that for England; 
and he, in an indefinite way, signified that he “wanted more.” 
Naturally, Mr. O’Beirne, as one of the members sought to be 
suppressed, had something to say, but personally he was magnanimous, 
being only grieved that there was no development of those principles in 
the Bill which were held so fast in the case of the English Reform Act. 
He threatened to move the omission of all the disfranchising provisions 
of the Bill. So far as he could be understood, Mr. Rearden wanted, 
first, the Repeal of the Union, and, afterwards, that forty more mem¬ 
bers should be added to the present House. Without objecting to the 
Bill, Mr. Gladstone hinted that its defect was the very limited addition 
which it made to the constituency, which might be enlarged by the 
adoption of an £8 County Franchise. 

The discussion in the House of the Common men, on the evening 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


157 


of tlic 19tli current, showed how erroneous was the supposition that 
the compound householder was dead. The compound householder is 
alive and kicking. Before Lord Mayo introduced the Irish Reform 
Bill, Mr. White explained how seriously Brighton had been injured by 
the new plan for collecting rates; and in a formal resolution he moved, 
that as much of the Reform Act as made occupiers liable for poor rates, 
instead of owners, should he repealed; that the name of every occupier 
should he put on the rate-hook; that the payment of rates hy the 
owner, under the compounding system, should he deemed payment hy 
the occupier, and should entitle him to the Franchise.. Whether or 
not the motion is sound, it is undeniable that the abolition of the old 
system has subjected the poor to great hardship, and the municipal 
authorities to great inconvenience. From the poorer parts of London 
has come one chorus of complaint. Mr. Sandford states that the 
Borough of Maldon cannot get the rates collected, that the local 
expenses are mounting up with the usual speed, and that tor want ot 
the usual funds they cannot he defrayed. Many other Boroughs could 
tell a similar tale. ‘ But, probably, the most striking case is presented 
Py Birmingham. As Mr. Dixon informed the House, the Reform Act 
would treble the size of his constituency, and more than 30,000 of the 
new class of voters have been compound householders. Many, how¬ 
ever, cannot or will not qualify themselves. About 4,000 expect to be 
exempted on the ground that they are unable to pay any lates, and a 
large number who are quite able are unwilling. Those malcontents 
must be summoned to pay, and in order that the summonses may be 
served the authorities must appoint half-a-dozen extra overseers. But 
the Act forbids the appointment of more than two. The ugly question 
arises, therefore, whether, if more than the legal number be appointed, 
a court of law can enforce the summonses which the extra officials may 
issue On this point the opinion ol counsel is divided, and meanwhile 
Birmingham hardly knows what to do. Nor is that the worst effect of 
the Act. In some towns, such as Birmingham, it virtually imposes a 
heavy tax on the new voters. Under the compounding system those 
householders paid the reduced rate ; now they pay the full rate ; and 
Mr Dixon calculates that, in the case of his own constituents, the dif¬ 
ference between the two is about 15s. a-liead. Thus every Birmingham 
man to whom the Household Suffrage Act has given a vote, knows that 
he is lined that amount for the privilege. Nor is it voters alone who 
must pay the new impost. In every Borough there are many Lrvi 
Servants of the humbler class, such as letter-carriers, whose position 
debars them from voting. Under the old system, most of those people 
paid the compounding rate, and now, though they are still kept as tar 
away from the hustings as ever, they must, on an average, pay 15s. 
additional. And still more hard is the case ol female occupiers. Ihey 
have no votes; on them the Reform Act conferred no direct benefit; 
they can ill afford to pay one additional shilling ; and yet they, too, 
must bear the novel burden. Nor does the evil end here. So large 
will be the number of defaulters, that a given rate will not yield the 
same amount as it would under the system of compounding. Accord¬ 
ing to Mr. Dixon, Birmingham has sustained during the present year a 
logc 0 f £8 000. To make up the required amount, therefore, the 
authorities must impose heavier rates; and, since a mass of peop e 
must he excused from paying anything, an additional burden must fall 
upon the actual ratepayers. Thus the Act makes many pay for what 


158 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


they do not get, others for what they do not want, and others for the 
deficit caused by the poverty or the parsimony of their neighbors. 
But it is easier to point out the evil than to devise the remedy. Even 
if Mr. White’s motion were faultless, we should act rashly in accepting 
it; since a committee has been appointed for the express purpose of 
considering the whole matter. The Government might, as Mr. Glad¬ 
stone suggested, devise some temporary means of relief; but, before 
legislating on the entire subject, the House must hear what is said by 
the committee. So complicated is the question, that to make such 
sweeping changes as that proposed by Mr. White, would, in all proba¬ 
bility, do more harm than good. In itself, indeed, the resolution of the 
honorable gentleman is open to grave objection, and in withdrawing 
it, Mr. White acted wisely. With his usual acuteness, Mr. Henley 
pointed out one serious blot. If, as the member for Brighton suggests, 
owners were made liable for the rate instead of occupiers, vast political 
power would be placed in the owners’ hands. The proprietor of fifty 
or a hundred small houses might forget or omit to pay the rates at the 
proper time ; if, as might often happen, he had a political end to serve, 
he would be only too glad to let the appointed day pass; and, whether 
he should do so by oversight or by design, his tenants would have no 
votes for that year. They might wish to vote for Mr. Bright, Mr. 
Mill, or Mr. Forster. They might be anxious to keep out some candi¬ 
date of strongly-pronounced Tory views. And only when it was too 
late would they learn, that, since the landlord had not paid the rates, 
they were for a twelvemonth practically disfranchised. Mr. Goschen, 
it is true, thinks that the danger might be averted by a simple device. 
On a day fixed beforehand, let the overseers call upon the landlord for 
the full amount. If he fail to pay, let the fact be made known to the 
tenants, and let them be told that, unless they themselves discharge 
the rate, they will have no votes. This course could be adopted, but it 
would expose the occupier to enormous inconvenience. Since he has 
paid the rate in his weekly rent, he makes no provision for a second 
payment; and when the overseer demands 20s. or 80s., the poor tenant 
cannot produce the amount. A better plan would be to impose a 
heavy penalty on every landlord who should so far betray his trust as 
not to discharge within the stipulated time the rates which he had 
undertaken to pay. Mr. Sandford suggested a different course. He 
would draw a hard line, say £4, below which no rate would be levied 
and no Franchise could be claimed. But that would practically be a 
surrender of Household Suffrage, and the House of the Common men 
will make no such retrograde step. Mr. Sandford proposed another 
plan, which Mr. Ayrton brought forward last year, and which would 
enable the class of compounding householders to pay the old reduced 
rates. But that plan is also beset with difficulty ; for it w T ould entail 
a loss on every Borough, which must be made up by the levying of 
heavier imposts on some class of ratepayers. The whole subject, 
indeed, is so obscure that the House stands in absolute need of the 
guidance which it will receive from the report of the select committee. 

The Earl of Mayo said, in rising to move for leave to bring in a 
Bill to amend the representation of the people in Ireland, he would 
endeavor to explain as briefly as possible the provisions of the Bill. 
In 1850, an Act was passed which very materially affected the repre¬ 
sentation of the Irish people. The effect of that Act was to add to all 
former Franchises which existed in Counties, an occupation Franchise 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


159 


based upon a rating of £12. In addition, also, to the Franchise exist¬ 
ing in towns, an £8 occupation Franchise was introduced. Before 
that Act the entire number of electors in Ireland was about 71,000— 
namely, 81,000 in Counties and 40,000 in Boroughs. In 1866, the 
last year for which there was a return, the total number of electors 
was 200,700—namely, 170,000 in Counties and 80,700 in Boroughs. 
He proposed to dismiss at once the consideration of the County 
Franchise in Ireland, by announcing it was not the intention of the 
Government to make any alteration in that respect, as the Franchise 
was precisely the same as that of the Act of last year for English 
Counties. With respect to the Borough Franchise, it was proposed to 
make considerable alteration. In Ireland, the occupier in the first 
instance paid the whole of the poor-rate ; but as a rule he was allowed 
to deduct from his rent half of the rate ; and, therefore, the poor-rate 
was substantially divided between landlord and tenant, with this 
exception, that in all hereditaments valued below £4 the immediate 
lessor was liable for the whole rate. This law existed generally over 
the whole country, with the exception of five towns,—Dublin, Cork, 
Waterford, Limerick, and Belfast,—where the immediate lessor was 
liable for the payment of all rates at and below a rental of £8. It was 
proposed to assimilate the law in that respect, and place these five 
towns upon the same footing as the rest of the country—that was to 
say, that the poor-rate of every house above £4 should be paid by 
the landlord and tenant, and at and below £4 the immediate lessor 
should be liable for the entire amount. Keeping in view the payment 
of rates as the basis of the Franchise, it was proposed to fix the Bo¬ 
rough Franchise at £4. The effect would be that every man in Ireland 
who was liable to pay any portion of the poor-rates would have a vote 
for the Borough in which he resided. The same conditions with regard 
to residence and registration as those of the Act of last year would be 
attached to the Franchise. The effect of the proposed addition to the 
Franchise would be to add 9,300 to the present number. It was also 
proposed to extend the Lodger Franchise to Ireland, and as soon as 
possible to issue a Boundary Commission. He now came to the more 
interesting part of the Bill, relating to the redistribution of seats. At 
present there are 33 Boroughs in Ireland returning 39 members. The 
population of those Boroughs was 790,000, their valuation £1,500,000, 
and the number of electors 30,700. It was very remarkable that the 
three cities Dublin, Cork, and Belfast absorbed more than half the 
population of the whole of the Boroughs, and two-thirds of the valua¬ 
tion. Taking out those three cities, the remainder of the Boroughs 
contained only 350,000 inhabitants, £480,000 valuation, and only 
13,000 electors. The population of Ireland was about five millions 
and a half, and the valuation £13,000,000, showing how small a por¬ 
tion of the wealth and population of the country was absorbed in those 
33 Boroughs. There were 32 Counties in Ireland, which returned 64 
members °to Parliament, and, taking population and wealth into 
account, there was an enormous discrepancy in the representation as 
between Counties and Boroughs. With the exception of Antrim, the 
four largest Counties were Cork, Tyrone, Down, and Tipperary, which 
returned one member for every 5,625 electors, while the other 28 
counties returned one member for every 2,300 electors, Those four 
largest Counties had therefore a very strong claim for additional repre¬ 
sentation. The question was how additional representation was to be 


160 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


obtained. It would be unjust to withdraw any members from any ot 
the towns returning two members. The principle ol grouping could 
not be adapted to Ireland, and, consequently, the only mode of obtain¬ 
ing the additional representation for the four Counties was by requesting 
some of the smaller Boroughs to make a sacrifice. These were your 
Ministerial proposals. You had endeavored to devise a plan by which 
great improvement would be made without effecting any violent change. 
No man could say you had acted from a party point of view, because 
of the six Boroughs taken three sat on one side of the House and three 
on the other. Your Irish Secretary confidently submitted the scheme 
to the attention of the House. The Speaker then put the question that 
leave be given to bring in the Bill, and declared that the ayes had it. 
Mr. Bearden, who, with Colonel French and Dr. Brady, had risen to 
speak on the question, complained that he had not been heard, and 
moved the adjournment of the House. Colonel French objected to 
the Bill, stating that the entire addition to the Borough constituencies 
in Ireland would not be more than 9,000. Mr. C. Fortescue asked 
when the Boundary Commission will be appointed for Ireland, and in 
what manner the third member would be given to Dublin ? Earl 
Mayo said the third member would represent the minority. The 
Boundary Commission could not be appointed until after the second 
reading of the Bill. Dr. Brady objected to the Bill on the ground that 
Ireland was treated different from England and Scotland. Mr. Bearden 
would state his grounds for moving amendments to the Bill. The 
people of Ireland are entitled to a proportionately equal number of mem¬ 
bers with the people of Great Britain. The right lion, gentleman 
wishes to be liberal, but the 54 Irish members who represent 8,000 
Protestants, and sit behind him, will prevent that as far as possible. 
There are 51 Irish members on the Liberal side of the House, repre¬ 
senting 5,000,000 of Boman Catholics ; while the 20,000,000 of people 
in England have 500 representatives. In “another place” the members 
are, almost without exception, anti-Boman. If the people of Ireland do 
not insist on something equal to the Ballot or the manhood Suffrage of 
Australia, they will deserve all the miseries they suffer from the Act 
of Union. Mr. Gladstone said, “I shall be glad to know whether the 
noble lord will lay on the table any statement explanatory of the speech 
he has made, and the principles which have guided the measures of 
the Government ? There are two principles in the Bill which are most 
marked. The first is the addition of members to the County represen¬ 
tation in Ireland, and the second the disfranchisement or merging of 
the Franchises of certain small Boroughs. I am not prepared to object 
to either of those principles in limine. At the same time, if the repre¬ 
sentation is to be taken from the Boroughs and given to the Counties, 
I think it is impossible not to take into view the state of the Franchise 
in the Boroughs and Counties respectively. And I learn with great 
disappointment that the Government have not discovered the means 
of making an addition on this great and important occasion to the Irish 
constituency going beyond the very modest figure of 9,000. There is, 
however, the question of the County Franchise, and though I do not 
give any opinion upon the subject at present, I wish to reserve perfect 
freedom to consider it; because, although undoubtedly there are some 
good principles in the Bill, I think, when we look at the general idea 
which runs through all Beform Bills, which is that of widening the 
basis of our institutions with the view of strengthening them, we must 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


161 


confess that such an addition to the constituency as is proposed, is a 
very limited addition. And the more especially when we remember 
that it was proposed by the Government of Lord Russell to reduce the 
County Franchise to an £8 rental Franchise. All I am anxious to 
do is to leave matters open, and I sincerely entertain a hope that when 
we come to discuss them in detail, and see the plan of the noble lord 
in print, together with the statements he promises, we shall be able 
to arrive at some satisfactory conclusion upon them.” If any of his 
old Irish Tory friends should attack Lord Mayo for having brought in 
an Irish Reform Bill, he may honestly use the plea of the frail damsel 
in the old story,—“ It is a very little one.” It is a kind of dwarf bill, 
and, indeed, might be exhibited with great success as a strange freak 
of Nature, perfect in all its parts, even with its little Boundary Com¬ 
mission, but of most diminutive stature. For instance, it adds 9,300 
to the Borough electors of the whole kingdom. What a magnificent 
donation ! Then we have two trifling inconsistencies. In Ireland we 
are to have that “ hard and fast line” so much denounced last year, 
and we are to retain the compound householder so summarily dis¬ 
missed from our English towns. The Franchise is to be fixed at £4 
rating—equivalent in Ireland to a £7 rental; and since in the cases 
of houses rated below £4 the landlord pays rates, at that point Lord 
Mayo draws the line. As to the County Franchise, there is to be no 
alteration, because it is at present fixed at £12. This is the most 
indefensible part of the Bill. If in 1850 Lord Russell found it needful 
to reduce the County Franchise to £12, in order to bring it to the level 
in some degree of what was then the English County Franchise, there 
ought to be a further reduction now, in order that Ireland may keep 
step with the extension of the English County Franchise carried last 
year. Dr. Beady properly pointed out that £12 a year in Ireland is 
equivalent to £18 a year in England, and I hope that this question of the 
County vote will be raised by a decisive resolution from the Liberal side 
of the House. When the question of disfranchisement is considered, 
the measure is so small that a political microscope of considerable power 
is required to discover it. Your idea of disfranchisement is absurd. Lord 
Mayo does not kill off the smallest Boroughs, but if lie finds a Borough 
situate in the center of a populous County, he sacrifices it to please its 
neighbors,—while smaller Boroughs’in other localities will still return 
members. Liberal members must take this little Bill, and act towards 
it as they did towards its big English brother,—they must so change 
the measure that nobody will know it to be the same. Its authors 
seem to have asked each other a question similar in spirit to that 
addressed to an expectant waiter by a gentleman immoi tali zed in 
Punch: “What is the very smallest measure we can give Ireland 
without being considered mean '? The Ministry have hit upon the 
most infinitesimal pill they could make up against the Irish earthquake, 
but I am not sure that they have secured the other desideratum.—the 

“ not being considered mean.” _ 

The leader of the Liberal party has kept his word to Ireland and to 
public opinion, and he is now prepared to follow up his memorable 
speech with action. Last Monday, Mr. Gladstone laid on the table oi 
the House of the Common men a Resolution on the subject oi the Irish 
Church Establishment. The declarations already made by Mr. Glad¬ 
stone in the name of the Liberal party have, it is well-known, closed 
the mouths of insincere critics like Mr. Bouverie, and left no rag of 


162 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


excuse to “ followers who won’t follow.” Liberal opinion is vitalized 
again ; the party take close and stern fighting order ; and Ireland is 
made quieter and happier with the light of new hopes. It would have 
been serious, indeed, if some clear and practical action had not fol¬ 
lowed the straightforward words employed on the evening of Monday, 
the J6tli current; but in this respect it was enough that Mr. Gladstone 
was the speaker ; and I think the country and Parliament will not find 
the Resolution in any degree inadequate to the manifesto. “The Irish 
Establishment as a State Church must cease to exist”—these are the 
words which will be made good by all and every means that the Liberal 
party can constitutionally employ. But should the Resolution be car¬ 
ried, it must obviously have an important practical effect at once. The 
bond which links the Church with the Executive and Legislative 
powers of the realm would be cut; and though the results would be 
gently displayed, they would from the very first annul and abolish the 
established character. Disendowment would thus be gradually carried 
out, as bishop after bishop, dignitary after dignitary, and incumbent 
after incumbent departed to a better world, and left their troublesome 
possessions here to the “moth and rust,” or, probably rather, to.a 
Church Property Commission. “ Disestablishment” would really begin 
from the very inception of such a process as I foreshadow, because, in¬ 
stead of being the antecessor of a line of State priests, each tenant of a 
preferment would behold in himself the last that should be appointed 
to his particular charge. It is clear that, while the Resolution might 
forbid any further extension of vested interests, it might respect those 
which already exist; and, at the same time, it might tend to terminate, 
by solemnly registered Parliamentary opinion, the existence of the 
Establishment in Ireland as a State Church. Nor would there be in 
such a Resolution anything which should cause dismay to a just and 
sensible Irish Protestant, still less to an English Churchman. If the 
advocates of the Establishment urge that nothing can replace for them 
the dignity and lustre of connexion with the State, there is but one 
reply. That dignity and that lustre they must relinquish, whatever be 
their value; for the opinion of the day is inexorably made up, and the 
peace and credit of the Empire absolutely depend upon the surrender 
or the withdrawal of these so-called advantages. For all spiritual pur¬ 
poses, the loss will be more than made up by the ardor of voluntary 
effort; and that is the only consideration which ought to weigh with 
serious minds like yours and your allies. However this may prove, it 
will be grossly unjust to pretend that the endowments in England 
would be menaced by the surcease of those in Ireland. There is no 
sort of parallel, as Mr. Gladstone pointed out, between the two 
Churches ; and although you, in your passionate devotion to Pro¬ 
testantism in both countries, may press this argument, it will be per¬ 
fectly easy to assuage your apprehensions, and to show that Churches 
exist now-a-days, not by the mere incident of State recognition, but by 
the work they do and the place they hold in the community. If the 
Resolution should wear the character which the public expect, it will 
leave no just ground for the sinister cry of “No Popery !” nor for the 
watchword “To defend the outworks of the Church;” but rather it 
will unite, with singular felicity, a respect for existing claims with the 
paramount necessity for doing quickly that which must be done. The 
principle of the surcease of State appointments to religious functions 
once proclaimed, the rest would be matter of detail, and of detail 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


1GS 


already well outlined for a Bill. As livings and emoluments dropped 
in by resignation or demise, tlie capital fund of the Establishment 
wouid bit by bit fall into the hands of a Church Property Commission. 
Mr. Bright has calculated the whole capital fund at the value of 
£10,000,000. Be it more or less, it would thus gradually accrue to 
the Commissioners, and nothing could be more simple than that they 
should sell the tithes, &c., to the landed proprietors, and with the pro¬ 
ceeds furnish a free grant, for ever dissociated from the Government, 
say £1,000,000 sterling or more, to the Catholic communities, and 
lesser gifts to the Episcopalian or the Presbyterian communions res¬ 
pectively. These creeds would then be left to their own anchors and 
cables, and Ireland would have some seven millions sterling in hand 
for educational and moral development ; for, beyond doubt, the surplus 
should be expended in and for Ireland. The fund would begin to arise 
as the appointments to Church offices ceased ; and it would be easy 
to make all the arrangements if such a plan proceeded with equal steps 
from the beginning to the happy end. At present, of course, it is not 
needful to go into further details. As I have said, they are not “ in 
the air but I should not be surprised if the vigorous action which is 
now commencing followed in future the direction of the programme 
thus already suggested. For the moment, however, our interest must 
be fixed on the forthcoming Resolution, which is to register the solemn 
intentions of the Legislature, and to assure Ireland that she shall have 
Justice, and not merely promises. Of Justice, so far as Mr. Gladstone 
can effect it, she will be instantly assured ; and if paltry personal ends, 
or hollow demands for “ time,” or cunning threats of dissolution cross 
the path of honor and equity, securus judicat populus -—“ the Nation is 

the judge of its representatives.” , . . 

Three years ago Mr. Gladstone declared, in his place m 1 ailia- 
ment, that the abolition of the State Church in Ireland was a question 
of the future ; and has now proclaimed to the Empire, in woids which 
will become historical, that the time for a momentous change in the 
ecclesiastical polity of Ireland has arrived. u The Iiish Chuicli, I 
am convinced, is an institution,—and it is so by the law ot ns exist¬ 
ence _ w hicli must be representative of the spirit of ascendency. 
What we want is, the expulsion of the spirit ot ascendency nom 
Ireland; and, in order to do so, we must deal decisively with the 
question of the Irish Church.” To appreciate the full meaning and 
import of this weighty declaration, we must accurately undeistand the 
political privileges which the Protestant Establishment at present 
enjoys, and the mode in which they were acquired. Is the Leadei ot 
the Opposition, in his bold announcement, preaching a policy ot con¬ 
fiscation ? Is he about to enter a crusade against ancient vested rights > 
Does he propose to lay sacrilegious hands upon property long ago con¬ 
secrated to pious uses? Unhappily, ninety-nine out ol a hunch.et 
educated Englishmen and Scotchmen are unable to answer these 
questions correctly- Few people know how the Establishment became 
possessed of its revenues in Ireland, or by what tenure it holds them. 
Many religious people believe that to secularize Church piopeity, oi 
to appropriate it for new purposes, is an act of impiety ; but, before 
we condemn the disendowment of the Irish Church on that score, we 
clearly ought to know the history of her possessions. It may be that 
her own title is frail, or even absolutely invalid. Roman Catholics 
look upon the Protestants as usurpers, who hold tithes and glebes by 


164 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


tlie right of the superior force. Which is the correct view ? If the 
existing Establishment is a mere intruder into domams not anciently 
her own, it is very obvious that her claim to State privileges is 
much weakened. Is it not remarkable that so few people take the 
trouble to investigate for themselves those antecedent questions which 
are found lying at the very root of the controversy ? If w r e would 
argue logically and safely, we ought to clearly know how the Protestant 
body acceded to its fine estates in Ireland. For seven centuries a 
Church has been maintained in Ireland by the civil authority.. The 
Council of Cashel 1172 established certain decrees which were in the 
nature of articles of union between the Anglo-Irish Church and State ; 
and the connection was maintained until the Reformation, in the 
reign of Henry VIII. It is a remarkable fact that, for a considerable 
time after the severance of England from the Roman communion, 
Catholics in Ireland generally acquiesced in the change. The bishops 
complied with the ecclesiastical decree, and the native people generally 
resorted to the parish churches, and submitted to the Act of Uniformity, 
until the end of the reign of Elizabeth. This statement does not rest 
on the authority of Protestant historians alone. Some of the most 
eminent Romanist writers have avowed that for a considerable period 
the mass of the Irish people conformed outwardly, at least, to Protes¬ 
tantism ; and there seems strong ground to believe, that if the country 
had been governed with humanity and justice, the majority of the 
population would have ultimately accepted the Reformation. The 
Irish were made dissenters from the Established Church by the same 
policy which has been the principal cause of dissent in England,— 
intolerance and persecution. From the time of Elizabeth they were 
subjected to systematic oppression, and they learned to hate their 
oppressors, their laws, and their religion. The desolating wars of her 
reign, the harsh policy of her successors, the confiscations and pro¬ 
scriptions which to this day render the name of William III especially 
detestable to the Celtic population, the pile of disabling statutes which 
the Parliaments of the four Georges directed against Papists,-—all 
these causes have powerfully contributed to confirm and intensify a 
national hatred of Protestantism. If England had really wanted to 
force Ireland into communion with Rome, she could not have taken 
more effectual steps than she did. The oppressed, down-trodden race 
were taught,—pains were taken to teach them,—to execrate the Saxon 
oppressor and to loathe everything connected with him. Can we 
wonder that under such a regime the religion of the English became 
odious ? Mr. Gladstone gave utterance to a historical truth when 
he declared the other night that the Protestant Establishment repre¬ 
sented the spirit of ascendency. It was and it is essentially a Parlia¬ 
mentary Church, — a statutory institution, — a public department, 
existing by no higher authority than that which founded the Board of 
Trade or the Post Office. It never has been a National Church in the 
proper sense of that expression. In diminishing the endowments of 
the existing Establishment, and in apportioning them to the actual 
needs of the people, is it true that we destroy ancient vested rights ? 
A great part of the property originally dedicated to ecclesiastical pur¬ 
poses, including a large share of the tithes, has been secularized since 
the reign of Henry VIII, and has got into the hands of various lay 
impropriators. Again, if we consider the origin of those revenues 
which the Irish State Church still retains, we must remember that 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


1G5 


they were originally given by pious donors,—we will not say to the 
Romanists, because that is begging tlie question,—but, at all events, 
to a clergy which held communion with Rome. When the great 
separation from the Papal See occurred in England, the immense 
majority of the people acquiesced. In England the people did not 
establish a new Church ; the English merely reformed and purified the 
old one. But on this side of the St. George’s Channel the case was 
altogether different. It is true that for some years the people, or a 
considerable portion of them, wavered in their allegiance to Rome, but 
finally they affirmed, and rejected the Anglican communion. Pro¬ 
testantism never became a general national faith among them, and the 
Protestant clergy never had any better title than Acts of the British 
Legislature. The Romanist, therefore, has at least some show of 
justice in his favor when he calls the transfer of ecclesiastical revenues 
to the Protestants an act of spoliation. At all events, the State Church 
has not nearly so strong a title to her revenues in Ireland as she has 
in England. Those who argue for the inalienability of property which 
has once been dedicated to ecclesiastical uses are apt to forget how 
much of that property is secularized already. A very large proportion 
of the great tithes and other revenues has, by various changes, come 
into the hands of laymen. It is not establishing any new principle to 
determine that part of the ecclesiastical revenues shall be devoted to 
secular objects. Tithes originally were not given for the exclusive use 
of priests ; from the very earliest times a portion of them was devoted 
to the relief of the poor, and to other purposes not strictly connected 
with religion. Blackstone says—“At the first establishment of pa¬ 
rochial clergy, the tithes were distributed in a fourfold division; one 
for the use of the bishop, another for maintaining the fabric of the 
Church, a third for the poor, and the fourth to provide for the incum¬ 
bent.” This quadripartite division was a general law of Christendom, 
and, therefore, the ancient endowments must have been made upon the 
understanding that part of them should be devoted to eleemosynary 
purposes. Bo far from violating the intentions of the original bene¬ 
factors, we should be promoting one of their chief objects were we to 
apply part of their bounty to the maintenance and the education of 
the poor. In defence of a scheme for transferring some of the super¬ 
fluous wealth belonging to the Irish Church, the most ancient pre¬ 
scriptive authority may be cited. But are we absolutely bound by the 
fetters of tradition ? Are the people made for the laws, or the laws 
for the people ? Doubtless it is easy to refer to solemn usages and 
regulations of Government which promise _ perpetuity to the Irish 
Protestant Establishment. It was made an integral part of the com¬ 
pact recorded in the Act of Union in 1800, and in the Catholic Eman¬ 
cipation Act of 1829. But are we never to be free from old bargains ? 
Surely they may be dissolved by the same power which made them,— 
the .will of the parties affected. Surely our right of self-government is 
as strong as that of our forefathers. If men point to the old laws 
which guarantee Protestant ascendency in Ireland, I answer that the 
experiment has been tried, and has utterly failed. The State Church 
does not do the work it was set to do. It does not evangelize the 
people. It is not, it does not profess to be, a missionary body. So far 
as a laro-e part of Ireland is concerned, it is the mere dead image and 
simulacrum of a Church, a legal fiction, which Acts of Parliament and 
ancient title-deeds cannot convert into a living reality. 


160 


THE SITAE? SPEAK AND FLAMING SWOED OF 


The House of the Common men presented “ a scene’' on last Monday 
evening which does not often occur. Members hurried into the House 
as soon as ever the Speaker had done prayers,—How is it that members 
are not present at prayers ?—and it was obvious that it was not to pre¬ 
sent petitions or to give notices that they were so early in attendance. 
Mr. Gladstone read the terms of his motion, and was very much 
cheered by the gentlemen below the gangway on the Liberal. side, 
whilst the pure Whigs behind him preserved a silence that was ominous 
to success in the lobby. The terms of the motion require a word of 
explanation as to form. It is a somewhat roundabout way apparently 
for the House to address the Throne, but it is necessary to do so in 
order to comply with the Constitutional rule of Queen, Lords, and 
Commons. The property of the Church is vested in the Queen as the 
Sovereign trustee of the Nation, and an Estate of the Realm cannot 
order any alteration in its disposition except with the consent of the 
Crown. You acted with great spirit and great courtesy on the occasion, 
for when your great antagonist and rival threw down the glove you at 
once took it up in the spirit of a chivalrous knight, and offered a ring 
for the tournament for Monday next. It was pleasant to hear how 
cleverly you proposed to arrange business in order that the Opposition 
might not be disappointed in the fray commencing, and Mr. Glad¬ 
stone, not to be outdone in courtesy, expressed his thanks to you in a 
manner becoming the occasion, and the head of the Opposition. In 
consenting to an early day for the Irish Church Resolutions, you did 
not, however, forget to make an easy passage certain for Sir John 
Pakington’s Army Estimates, and a more adroit stroke was, probably, 
never accomplished, for it has not occurred that for many years we 
have had Estimates so capable of challenging criticism as the Estimates 
for 1868. The grand point, however, is, that the Irish Church Esta¬ 
blishment is doomed. Mr. Gladstone has given notice of a motion 
which destines it to destruction. The House of the Common men 
cannot refuse to treat his proposition with the consideration which 
its importance deserves ; and British statesmen cannot refrain from 
going further, and condemning and removing the greatest scandal of 
the age. One simply wonders how so great a Reform has been so 
long delayed, and how it is that a grievance denounced years ago 
has been tolerated to a period which ought to have been the witness 
of its extirpation. In no spirit of faction do I hail the triumph that 
is inevitable. Few know, and few care to know, the evil interests that 
are bound up with the institution whose existence is now a matter of 
a few months. Were it merely an agency of religious teaching, pro¬ 
pagating a creed which, although hostile to the sentiments of the 
people, had yet something to recommend it to their intelligence, it 
might be borne with as one of those social afflictions from which there 
is no escape. It is, however, devoid of a single redeeming feature, and 
charity itself cannot offer it the shadow of protection. It is, happily, 
doomed, and blessings innumerable will flow from its destruction. 
With the Irish Church Establisment will go down the greatest evils 
that ever afflicted this country. Ascendency, intolerance, the spirit of 
bigotry, which is the spirit of persecution, will disappear, and in its 
stead there will shine forth in all its purity and brightness, the spirit 
of that pure and holy faith which means peace to all mankind. With 
the Established Church in this country have been bound up the greatest 
scandal and the greatest grievance of misgovernment. It has been the 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


167 


fruitful mother of intolerance,—the rich source of difference and dis¬ 
pute. The symbol of conquest it became the badge ot degradation, and 
to the last it has continued to he the exponent of a policy which was 
as ruthless in its tendency as it was unjustifiable in its principle. It 
is impossible that there could be peace in Ireland so long as the Cliuich 
Establishment continues. Pride and arrogance and bigotry are the 
products of its existence. It has no hold upon the affections ant 
sympathies of the people. It was imposed upon them against then 
will; it has been their great persecutor in darker days ; it is still 
their great oppressor, and it must be got rid ot, no matter what may 
be the cost or sacrifice. When it has disappeared the only wonder 
will be how well it can be dispensed with. For over its rums will 
spring into life the blessed seeds of harmony and peace. In Ireland, 
then, there will be no vain pretensions to superiority,—no offensive 
assumptions of exclusive privileges based upon State orthodoxy. Each 
sect and party will stand on its own merits, and on the disappearance 
of a false and unjust precedence there will come a righteous and satis¬ 
factory equality, which will prove a blessing to the land, distracted by 
many troubles, the greatest ot which are and have been the le lgious 
bickerings for which the State Church is solely responsible. I earnestly 
hope the existence of that Church has drawn to a close, and 1 cannot 
exaggerate the satisfaction with which I view the manly step tiiat Mr. 

Gladstone has taken for its final extinction. .. „ , 

Public opinion will echo the “loud cheers” that greeted the first 
of the three Resolutions which Mr. Gladstone offered last Monday 
night with respect to the Irish Church, and Tory speakers and organs 
can no longer complain that the policy of the Opposition is uncertain 
or hesitating. Nothing could well be plainer than the language of the 
substantive proposition with which the Leader of the Liberal party has 
met the negative declarations of your Government. _ The same decisive 
words are to be found in the Resolution which in Mr. Gladstone s 
speech drew from his entire party the first united and enthusiastic 
shout of adhesion which had been heard m its ranks for many a day. 
“ It is necessary that the Established Church should cease to exist as 
an Establishment,”—this is the Resolution which Mr. ^adstone calls 
upon the House of the Common men to register, and all that follows 
is either of the nature of the necessary reservations, or ot details to 
effect the one and paramount end. A weaker declaration would be o 
no use. The time has utterly gone by for paltering with Ireland, bhe 
waits in patience now, because she really believes that statesm^i are 
in earnest; and they are not m earnest, it the House ot the Com 
men of Britain will not affirm the necessity for abolishing the con¬ 
nexion of the alien Church with the State. Only such an affirmation 
and a just Land Tenure Act are needed to turn Ireland from a “ational 
trouble into a main element of strength and glory to the lealm. In 
the first sentence, therefore, oi the three Leso u rons icsk es ■ 1 1 

of them all, and if the House of the Common menaaopts.-as it must, 
sooner or later,—the principle expressed, the rest is matter oi deta 
rather than of principle. It was, oi course, needful to add to the 
proposition of disestablishment the clause guarding personal and exist- 
nSts • and these naturally suggest the second Besolution. Let 
1 ,®'urinate no more of the “ vested interests,” which bristle m this 
path as E that of aU reform or political justice. Let the . presen 
House of the Common men show that it is sincere by lesolvmg tha 


168 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


the public patronage shall no longer be exercised to fill up vacancies in 
the Irish Church Establishment. Thus the axe is at once laid to the 
root of the monstrous upas-tree. The acceptance of the Besolution 
would warn the cadets of the Establishment to push their fortunes 
elsewhere, and would make nominees and patrons aware that the be¬ 
ginning of the end had come. A cautionary half-sentence guards this 
proposal against inconveniences and infractions of undoubted rights. 
The third Besolution proposes an Address to her Majesty, praying that 
the Sovereign will transfer to Parliament her interest in the tempo¬ 
ralities of the Irish archbishops, bishops, dignitaries, and benefices. 
Thus, of course, a large portion of the funds in question would come 
into the public hands, and, with the consent of Parliament, would be 
as completely at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for 
the time being, as the Excise duties. No alarmed Orangeman or dis¬ 
mayed Tory must pretend that the question of secularizing the tempo¬ 
ralities is too new to be discussed. On Monday next thirty-three years 
to a day will have elapsed since a serious attempt was made to reduce 
the Irish Establishment. On the BOtli of March, 1885, Lord John 
Bussell, then leader of the Opposition, moved that the House should 
resolve qtself into committee “to consider the temporalities of the 
Church of Ireland.” In committee, he proposed to move a Besolution 
recommending the application of the surplus Church revenue to pur¬ 
poses of general education. At the same time he announced that, if 
the Besolution were adopted, he should move that it be presented to 
the Crown in an address, with an humble entreaty “that his Majesty 
would be most graciously pleased to enable the House to carry it into 
effect.” To persons not familiar with the strict rules which for cen¬ 
turies have governed the relations between the Sovereign and the 
Legislature, this method of addressing the Crown,—the same now 
employed in the third Besolution,—may seem unnecessarily circuitous. 
The explanation, however, is simple. Where the patronage or pro¬ 
prietary rights of the Sovereign are affected by any proposed Parlia¬ 
mentary measure, it is necessary to obtain the Boyal sanction before 
proceeding with the Bill. It had been decided, in a precisely similar 
case, that the House of the Common men could not constitutionally 
dispose of the ecclesiastical patronage of the Crown without the King’s 
special consent, expressed by a message, either upon the advice of the 
Ministers, or in answer to an address. The motion for going into 
committee on the question of the temporalities was resisted by Sir 
Bobert Peel, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, but was after a four 
days’ debate, carried on the 2nd of April by a majority of 83. The 
main issue was, whether there should be an “ appropriation” of sur¬ 
plus revenue. The Tory party were willing that the emoluments of 
the Church should be subject to redistribution and re-arrangement, 
but were not willing that any portion should be applied to secular 
purposes. A Besolution was ultimately adopted: “ That any surplus 
revenue of the present Church Establishment in Ireland not required 
for the spiritual care of its members be applied to the moral and reli¬ 
gious education of all classes of the people, without distinction of 
religious persuasion, providing for the resumption of such surplus or 
of any such part of it as may be required by an increase in the number 
of the members of the Established Church.” Lord Derby, then Lord 
Stanley, spoke and voted with the Government. He contended that 
the “ appropriation” would not pacify Ireland, and protested against 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


169 


what lie described as a proscription of the Established Church in par¬ 
ticular districts because only a few persons were attached to it. After 
the Resolution of the committee had been reported to the House, 
another critical division took place on the 7th of April, 1885, the ma¬ 
jority being 27 against the Government. On the following day the 
Duke of Wellington in the House of the Lords, and Sir Robert Peel 
in the House of the Common men, announced the dissolution of the 
Ministry ; and on the 18th of April Lord Melbourne notified the for¬ 
mation of a new Cabinet, in which he occupied the place of First Loid 
of the Treasury. You may choose, therefore, what fighting ground 
you will on Monday next, but you cannot claim that of “ unheard of 
novelty” or “violent innovation.” Not only has the subject come 
before Parliament, but public opinion has not been silent in the in¬ 
terval. On the contrary, such changes as have taken place point .the 
moral of the present juncture with a commentary full of instruction. 

It is true that the leading men of both parties have done little to pre¬ 
pare for action, but the work has been accomplished for them by events, 
and even the commotion in America has had its reflex influence m 
Ireland. If you compare the state of feeling in 1885 and in 1858,— 
the spread of disaffection in Ireland, the reprobation of the alien 
Church among all parties in England and Scotland, and the confessions 
of the Tories themselves,—you must see at once that the time.tor 
action has arrived. If you had recognized that necessity, you might 
have kept your lead on this question as well as m the Reform legisla¬ 
tion • but your deliberate resolve to adopt, for the moment, a policy 
of inaction and of reticence has forced the opposite policy on the Li¬ 
berals From the moment when, anticipating the report of your own 
Commission, you declared the other night for endowment always and 
everywhere, you positively went behind the rear of your own party, an 
forgot the first rudiments of the “education” you have been so long 
imparting. Will you meet these necessary propositions with a reite¬ 
ration of the theory that the existing House is not .“ morally compe¬ 
tent” to pronounce upon such a question as the Irish Cliuich . 
will you pretend that the fate of the English Establishment is bound 
up with the destiny of the alien and hated incubus in Ireland and that 
“^endowment” is a sacred principle which cannot be touched witliou 
imperiling the palladium of religion ? Neither assertion can be^emei- 
tained. The odium incurred by the spurious.and hostile Establishment 
on this side of the Channel does but cast discredit and injury on the 
genuine Church of England: it is not an outpost, but a provocative 
of attack a source of weakness. And although the expiring Parliament 
‘ v not be the best suited to the task of accomplishing so fundamental 
“change those who object on that score forget that it is for statesmen 
to take the initiative In propounding great measures whrch pubh 
oninion mav fairly demand a few months to study. In Mi. Gladstone s 
declaration, then, Reformers have the policy of Liberals as regards tl 
Irish Church. There stands the programme of their intentions, and, 
following his Leader, every real Liberal member must insist upon the 
accentanceor the triumph of the Resolutions. The satisfaction of 
Ireland not the expulsion of your Ministry, is the object to be achieved, 
and it is immaterial whether the end be attained by your submission 

01 b M/°GLADSTONE has fully redeemed the pledge lie gave on the last 
night of the Irish debate. He does not merely lay down an abstiact 


170 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


principle. He indicates a policy, and shows how it can be carried 
into effect. The first Resolution is, that, while paying all due regard 
to personal interests and individual rights of property, the Irish Church 
shall cease to exist as an Establishment. This Resolution really 
disposes of your “ principle of endowments.” It condemns, by im¬ 
plication, any attempt to put the other Irish Churches on the same 
level as the State Church according to the plan of leveling up, and only 
proposes to produce religious equality by taking away the exceptional 
privileges of the Establishment. It leaves the property of the Church 
to be dealt with as Parliament may afterwards decide. This is in fact 
a merely secondary consideration, and ought not at the present time 
to complicate the main issue, how religious equality is to be produced. 
Reformers are not, however, permitted to remain in doubt as to the 
manner in which this Resolution is to be met. You said, in replying to 
Mr. Gladstone the last night of the Irish debate; that this is a moribund 
Parliament, and therefore incompetent to deal with so weighty a 
question. It is not a little curious thus to see the same politician who 
last Session pretended to surrender his Ministerial functions to the 
“ House,” wdio accepted a Reform Bill from the “House,” and who 
showed so much deference to the “ House” that he requested it to give 
him a policy, now turning round and questioning the moral competence 
of this same “ House” to express a definite opinion on the question of 
the Irish Church. A Parliament which has the moral competence to 
continue the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act is surely competent 
to consider any measure for the redress of Irish grievances. Were 
the constituents ever consulted about the establishment of Household 
Suffrage ? You said that in Lord Palmerston’s last speech to his 
constituents there was not one word about the Irish Church ; and that 
the question of its maintenance had never been placed before the 
electors who returned the present House of the Common men. But 
there was as little about Reform as about the Irish Church in the 
programme which Lord Palmerston submitted to the electors in the 
Summer of 1865. The political issue was really narrowed to a question 
of personal confidence in the octogenarian statesman. Household 
Suffrage, which Parliament has accepted, would have been much more 
a surprise to Lord Palmerston than a Resolution of the House of 
the Common men to disestablish the Irish Church. He had been a 
Member of a Government that in 1884 made no secret of its desire 
to remove the plague-spot of the Establishment; but he had never 
been the Member of a Government that had been in favor of Household 
Suffrage. This great reduction of the Franchise was much less expected 
at the commencement of last Session than a question this Session 
affecting the existence of the Irish Establishment. Some such Resolution 
as the first of those laid before the House of the Common men last Mon¬ 
day night has been for months “ looming in the distance.” The Irish 
Tories, at least, cannot complain that they have been taken by surprise. 
What was the meaning of the Hillsborough demonstration ? It was 
not made against a far-distant and prospective danger. It was assumed 
that the question of the Irish Church would immediately occupy the 
attention of the Legislature. A Defence Association was formed. It 
has been attempted to hold meetings all over Ireland, and especially 
throughout Ulster, in support of an institution which was so plainly 
threatened. But it is not Mr. Gladstone who first forces this question 
on the House of the Common men during the present Session. This 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


171 


is clone by your Ministry, who propose to establish a new Catholic 
University, intimate plainly that you wish to produce religious equality 
by leveling up, and seek to commit Parliament to a policy of universal 
and systematic endowment of the Catholic and Protestant Churches. 
Is the present House of the Common men morally competent to 
sanction the charter to this Catholic University, to endow it out of 
the public funds, and to increase the Regium Donum ? You and your 
supporters must surely think so, for you ask this moribund House of 
the Common men to commence this leveling up system by the estab¬ 
lishment of the Catholic University under the sanction of the State, 
and with the support of money supplied by the State ; and it is 
known that some thirty Irish Tory Members met in the Langham 
Hotel and agreed to support the increase of the Regium Donum, 
which, too, Lord Mayo was also evidently inclined to favor. Mr. 
Gladstone, in obedience to the wishes of his most influential supporters 
in the House, simply asks the Parliament to hesitate before entering 
on the policy of universal endowment, and to give a pledge in favor of 
religious equality, in the only manner it can really be brought about, 
by declaring that the Irish Church ought to be disestablished. The 
second and third Resolutions logically follow from the first. If the 
House should accept the principle that the Church ought to be disestab¬ 
lished, “the origination of new personal interests by the exercise of 
any public patronage” would, of course, be highly inexpedient. “ The 
humble address to her Majesty,” as proposed by the third Resolution, 
to place “ at the disposal of Parliament her interests in the temporalities 
of the archbishops, bishops, and other ecclesiastical dignities and bene¬ 
fices in Ireland and in the custodies thereof,’’ is a formal and decorous 
acknowledgement of the Sovereign’s prerogatives, which, however, can 
never really be exerted against the constitutional authority of the 
Parliament, to reform abuses, and to remove any great men alities 
between different sections of her Majesty’s subjects. Noav i at Mr. 
Gladstone has formally committed himself and his party to deal with 
this great question, Reformers must, of course, expect to hear some 
people, who cannot make up their minds to the great fact of his political 
leadership, depreciating the decisive policy on which he has ente ccV 

* The Times says much criticism has been wasted, and more will be wasted, on 
Mr. Gladstone’s motion. It is inopportune, it is obscure. It is not abstract, it is 
not- detailed, it ought to have been deferred. It would be much better if the 
cavillers where to imitate the conduct of Mr. Disraeli. The Premier understands 
his own position, and the feeling of the House of Commons. We shall be surprised 
if he condescends to the weakness of complaint that Mr. Gladstone has brought his 
Irish policy to the test of a vote. On Monday night, at all events, he presented an 
admirable contrast to such pusillanimity. He treated Mi. Gladstone with fiankness 
and dignity—in truth, it was evident that, if Mr. Gladstone meant to justify his 
position as leader of the Opposition, he was bound to provoke the encounter. From 
all sections of his followers—from old Whigs, economic jurists, Dissenting Kadicals, 
and philosophers—Mr. Horsman, Mr. Lowe, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Mill, there came 
one crv, and Mr. Gladstone had no choice but to put himself at the head of the 
movement, or to abdicate claim to lead at all. The l imes , in conclusion, sajs the 
House of Commons may, and we trust will, declare with no hesitating voice, that 
the Irish Establishment, must cease to exist; but it will rightly remit to the Legisla¬ 
ture appointed to succeed it the duty of confirming its opinion, and of pointing out 
the way of carrying it into effect. Mr. Gladstone’s Kesolutions mark an epoch 
of the utmost importance in Parliamentary history. It is conceded by common 
consent that they must divide statesmen and politicians into two clearly defined and 
distinct bodies. The difficulties of the crisis are so great that all attempts to 
aggravate them by unreal threats or pretences ought to be sternly repressed. It is 


172 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


* 


I have no doubt tliat persons who, had he hesitated and pursued a 
temporizing policy, would have condemned him for political cowardice, 
will now blame him for having entered boldly on the road which must 
lead to a great victory or to a great defeat. It may lead to both : but 
the defeat, if it occur, can be but temporary, and the ultimate crowning 
victory is certain. The Irish Establishment will not and cannot last. 
It is not to interfere with the discretion of the Parliament chosen 
under Household Suffrage now to enunciate a policy of disestablishment. 
On the contrary, it is to strengthen the hands of the House of the 
Common men that shall be chosen under an extended Suffrage ; for 
the policies of the two political parties will be clearly defined and the 
people will know for what they are voting. Even in the very Resolu¬ 
tions proposed by Mr. Gladstone, the “ moral competence” of the new 
Parliament is expressely reserved. It is affirmed that no new personal 
interests shall be originated “ pending the final decision of Parliament.” 
You really seek to originate new personal and sectarian interests 
which must interfere with the final decision of Parliament, by setting 
up a new Catholic University, with endowments for professors, scholar¬ 
ships, and colleges. It will not be surprising, and it will be in harmony 
with your whole political career, if you now try to explain away not 
only Lord Mayo’s speech, but your own explanation of that speech 
and policy, and seek to appeal to all the ignorance and fanaticism of 
the lowest classes of the Protestant population. Some of the sentences 
which recently fell from your lips have that tendency. Such tactics 
are not likely, however, to be successful. They will be found too late, 
just as much as the principle of indiscriminate endowments you 
advocated is utterly unsuited to the circumstances of the times in 
which we live, and for which we have to legislate. “Vivian Grey” 
going to the country on the cry, “ The Church is in danger,” would, 
indeed, be a spectacle almost sublime in its presumptive impudence 
and unscrupulous audacity. 

The Church Establishment in Ireland then, appears to be doomed ; 
for although the question arising out of its endowment has been argued 
for many years, it was not made a rallying point of Political Science 

due to Mr. Disraeli to admit that he met Mr. Gladstone’s notice of motion on 
Monday in a perfectly fair and statesmanlike spirit, and the Times trusts that, when 
responsible statesmen engage in the debate of next week, we shall have nothing of 
appeals to Protestant England, meaning thereby the condemned constituencies, on 
behalf of the Protestant Government, which proposes to charter and endow a Roman 
Catholic University. The suggestion will not bear the light of publicity, and the 
genuine defenders of the Irish Church are dishonored by the practices of their 
unscrupulous followers. The Daily News says the discussion on the policy of her 
Majesty’s Government is over, and the discussion of the policy of the Opposition 
remains. Mr. Gladstone’s Resolutions hold out hope to Ireland; and while they 
promise prompt action upon the just principle which they lay down, they remove 
every obstacle to the exercise of a free discussion by the new constituencies, and the 
representatives whom they may choose. After what Mr. Disraeli said on Monday 
night, it is scarcely possible that he would seek to influence the division by the threat 
of dissolving. The only inference of which his language admits is that he will 
provisionally acquiesce in Mr. Gladstone’s Resolutions, should they be carried 
against him, and reserve his appeal for the general election and the new Parliament. 
The Star insists that the Liberal Parliament must not be content with declaring the 
doom of the Irish Church, but must take whatever steps are necessary to remove 
from power any Minister in favor of upholding the Irish Church grievance. The 
Telegraph says the pacification of Ireland, not the expulsion of the Ministry, is the 
object to be achieved, and it is immaterial whether the end be attained by the 
submission or by the defeat of Mr. Disraeli. 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


178 


until Mr. Gladstone, consistently with the liberal views which he has 
entertained for the last twenty years, declared that it must be wholly 
abolished. The Protestant Church in Ireland has always been a 
very great grievance to the vast majority of the Irish people, and 
there seems to be now an almost general concurrence of opinion that 
the time has arrived for its removal. You might possibly have veered 
round to the point taken up by Mr. Gladstone, if time had been allowed 
you for the “ education” of your party on this question ; but you are 
so clever, so cunning, so tricky, that if you were permitted to get 
comfortable in your seat, you might possibly contrive to reconcile the 
public by some of your odd, and not unpopular ways, to your continuance 
there ; and to the continuance of the Church Establishment in Ireland, 
which the Liberal party have doomed. .Therefore an efioit must be 
made to oust you and so destroy all Tory expectations. Ilie Tories 
will not allow it to be forgotten that when Mr. Gladstone sat on the 
Treasury Bench, in 1865, he took no decided step against the mon¬ 
ster grievance of the Irish Church ) but statesmen are not leluctant 
now to acknowledge the possibility of their becoming wiser to-day than 
they were yesterday, and since you became Premier Mr. Gladstone lias 
concluded the Irish Church to be an abuse which cannot be allowed 
to remain uncorrected; and that it is only by the demolition of the 
Establishment that the peace of Ireland can be secured. His first 
Resolution, therefore, which contains the substance of the whole is 
<< That in the opinion of this House it is necessary that the Established 
Church in Ireland should cease to exist as an Establishment, 
may be your misfortune that you are too slow in arriving at the same 
conviction as Mr. Gladstone. If time were allowed, your eyes might 
open also, and the two political gladiators might smile together over 
the work they had accomplished ; but two Kings cannot leign m 
Downing street. In order that Gladstone may come in, it is 
necessary that you should go. But you have no mind to go ; you 
would rather stay and be thankful; you have gained the height towaids 
which your looks and your actions have been for thirty years directed, 
you have pressed onward against all sorts of discouraging circum¬ 
stances ; without a party and without friends ; scornea on one side 
and chilled with faintest praise on the other, you have won the prize 
of a life’s conflict, and you would like to keep it. But Mr Gladstone 
forbids • and Mr. Gladstone is leader of the Opposition, whose 
majority on general questions of policy is known to be considerable. 
You can only defeat the movement against you by dmdmg this 
majority, and you take the matter so easily that one might tlimk you 
felt assured of an easy victory ; but a statesman s visage is a mask con¬ 
cealing his inward emotions, and you may be sure that Mr. Gladstone 
had looked over his forces and duly weighed their principles and 
oninions before laying his motion upon the table. Phe terms of that 
motion were discussed by the leading members of the Opposition before 
W- finally agreed upon, in order not only that all Liberal members, 
Dissenters as well as Churchmen, might feel at liberty to vote for it, 
but also that the enemy, in his craftiness, might not find an opportunity 
of walking through it or turning it to Ins advantage. Simple as it 
looks, it is the result of long deliberations. There would, to a super¬ 
ficial observer, seem little or nothing m it; but it carries a double 

death in its innocent-looking bosom-death to your Administration and 

then death to the Established Church m Ireland. It remains to be 


174 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


seen wliat the Protestants in Ireland will say to a plan which discon¬ 
nects them from the State, and puts their religion and its services 
under the voluntary system. That the Irish Church is obnoxious to a 
large majority of the Irish people is unquestionable, and it is equally 
indisputable that the wishes of the latter should be consulted. But it 
is not so clear that satisfactory legislation can he accomplished at a 
heat. If by the carrying of Mr. Gladstone’s Resolutions the Irish 
Church could be abolished, and goodwill he established among the Irish 
people at the same time, its success would be a grand achievement; hut 
the aspects allow only room for hope. Should you defeat the motion, 
the Irish Church will be perpetuated with all its abuses and inequalities, 
for Lord Cairns and Mr. Hardy, the clogs upon your liberal action, 
would assert their authority, with a Parliamentary majority to back 
them ; and the disposition of our Literary Premier would be overborne. 
Favored by time, you might “educate” even your Lord Chancellor to 
take a liberal view of the Irish Church grievance, and lead him to the 
discovery that the Church property w r as not originally dedicated to 
ecclesiastical uses only. “ At the first establishment of parochial 

clergy,” says Blackstone, “the tithes of the parish were distributed in 
a four-fold division; one for the use of the bishop, another for main¬ 
taining the fabric of the Church, a third for the poor, and the fourth 
to provide for the incumbent.” The wisdom of Parliament should 
be equal to the discovery of a means of relieving the majority of the 
Irish people from the burthen of an alien Church without violence to 
those for whose services it is preserved. But the wisdom of Parliament is 
only required to dismiss you. And as you are very unwilling to be dis¬ 
missed, there will be a strong fight for ascendency. Should the 
Resolutions be carried against you it is said by Ministerial partizans 
that you will not resign ; “ you will appeal to the country for its judg¬ 
ment.” It is to be hoped, in that case, that the Irish and Scotch Reform 
Bills will be carried through Parliament before a dissolution takes place, 
for the country would be thrown into great confusion by the occurrence 
of two elections in one year. A general election merely to determine 
whether Gladstone or you should be Premier, when another must 
necessarily take place, in accordance with the Reform Act, in January 
next, would be a profligate waste of time and a source of great vexation 
throughout the country. 

Apart from their great consequences, both in a party and historical 
sense, Mr. Gladstone’s Resolutions are most significant. They are a 
noble protest against partizan dodges and motions made to catch votes. 
You have great courage, especially in invective; but not even the 
Author of “ Vivian Grey” can dare to say that Mr. Gladstone has not 
raised the momentous issue of our time in a manly manner, admitting 
of no mistake. Had he followed the precedent set by Lord John 
Russell in 1885, he might have contented himself with an abstract 
condemnation of the Irish Church ; but he asks the House to go beyond 
theory, and to pledge itself to the Irish people by an irreversible step. 
For the character of the Resolutions is such that, if adopted by the 
House, they must necessarily be followed by a Bill. It is something to 
have in our time a man who has the courage to act upon his own opi¬ 
nions,—who believes that politics are not words, but acts; and that men 
must not only preach Truth, but execute Justice. Mr. Gladstone may 
have faults ; the Liberal party might discover, if they tried, some leader 
with greater subtlety of plan and greater ingenuity of device ; but they 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


175 


could not find any one wlio is more thoroughly honest, or more certain 
to ensure the final triumph of their cause. On two occasions the Li¬ 
berals won office by abstract Resolutions which they surrendered when 
in power,—once when Lord John Russell relinquished the policy of 
the Appropriation Clause, and once when Lord Palmerston letained 
as a Tory the place he had won by a Resolution in favor of Reform. 
The people of Britain know by Mr. Gladstone s previous caieei, fiom 
the day when he quitted office under Peel to the day when in 1866 lie 
retired sooner than accept a mutilated Bill, that any Resolution which 
he proposes is “ meant to win.” That which lie has now propounded 
obviously compels the passing of a new Act without delay; and so 
soon as such an Act has passed, the Irish Church begins to die. Fiom 
that day the vacancies which may occur in bishoprics and Crown 
livings will remain unfilled; the gradual dilapidation of the great 
political fortress, miscalled a Church, will have begun ; and Parliament 
will be compelled to clear away the rubbish and build up anew some 
national Irish institution not founded on violence nor continued as a 
standing wrong. No Tory Ministry can accept the Resolutions m the 
hope of paltering with them in a double sense. There may be weak- 
kneed Liberals, who regret Mr. Gladstone’s honesty and boldness, 
who would prefer to have their flag waved gently m the enemy s lace, 
not nailed to the mast: but honesty is the best policy ; courage will 
have its reward; the whole Nation will applaud a man who despises 
the petty tactics of mere party leaders, and. who finds m Justice the 
watchword of final success. Such an act lifts us out of the old tepid 
Tea-room atmosphere into a freer air. It may seem to many that 
actual good can scarcely flow from a merely negative Resolution,—a 
merely repealing Act. But, in fact, England and Scotland have ruled 
Ireland so badly that the best boon statesmen can bestow is not to do 
something which they are now doing daily, with calamitous results. 
Some persons have a vague idea that the Irish Church is an old, se 
supporting, self-acting institution, which goes on, probably unjustly, 
or probably with bad effect, yet without actively involving the Govern¬ 
ment of the day,—that it is a great and venerable fabric the wardeis 
of which only cry out “ Let us alone.” But the institution that now 
finds no one to say, “ God bless it,” and that is sunk so low “to have 
few respectable defenders, is nothing of the kind. It is an active, 
living corporation, ruled by the Ministry ot Britain, and vigorously 
recruited from time to time. Not a month, hardly a week, passes by 
in which the British Viceroy does not appoint a Protestant clergyman, 
with a licence to take care of the souls of some twenty or thuty Pi - 
Wants at the expense of some three or four thousand despoiled 
Papists There is not a single Prime Minister of our day who lias not 
appointed at least one bishop to fatten on the funds drawn from Irish 
1-uid When Irish Protestant bishops and clergymen say, Let us 
alone ” they forget that if statesmen do let them alone they will die. 
ItTs the constant action of statesmen in making new appointments 
That keens up the succession of ecclesiastical oppressors cumbering 
he ground ^statesmen have but to hold their hand, and, as the living 
incumbents gradually disappear, the great , 1 ^—e £ a Mate 
Thm-oli will also gradually go away. Inat is wnat mi. uladsiu 
now asks the Nation’s hands. What he demands does not even 
amount to a positive act of Justice; it is simply a promise not to 
commit any more acts of injustice. We are, if we accept Ins advice, 


176 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


merely to “ cease to do eviltlie other part of the lesson, “ learn to 
do well,” he has not yet imposed, And are w T e to be told that this is 
too much to ask from the Liberal party, commanding as they do a 
clear majority-of the House? Are they to approve by their vote, the 
perpetuation of that corporate alien who stands between the Irish 
people and the Justice they have so often demanded from Britain with 
their blood and with their tears ? Is the Crown to persevere, almost 
day by day, in appointing young parsons “to wring from the hard 
hands of peasants their vile trash, by an}'' indirection?”—rent-charge 
or what not,—and is her Majesty to appoint new bishops "whose lives 
will be the measure of the continuance of iniquity and oppression ? 
Are the few,—very few,—trimmers and traitors within our camp to 
prevail when they say that to arrest the hand of the wrong-doer is 
“rather too much,”—that to check the renewal of injustice is “very 
precipitate,”—that merely to stand between Ireland and new insults is 
to “ commit the House” too hastily and too far ? One thing is clear,— 
the Nation will understand the situation. I believe that, even in po¬ 
litics, Mr. Gladstone has laid down a course from which, even if he 
wished it, he and his party cannot swerve. If he attains office in 
consequence of success he must act at once on the policy which the 
Besolutions proclaim ; they are no abstract ideas that can be con¬ 
veniently set aside. This pledge of his own fearless and uncompro¬ 
mising honesty will tell trumpet-tongued for him and against his 
opponents. Italy advanced to victory under a lie Gcilantuomo ; the 
Liberal party has a leader who, by this thorough-going plan of action, 
shows himself an honest man. Nothing, therefore, need check the 
order for the removal of this Imperial nuisance, the Irish Church.- 
Reformers have compared that Church to a building perpetually 
repaired by the action of the Crown ; but it might be better likened to 
one of those cairns which are built in some countries as rude memo¬ 
rials of a great crime, and which by degrees would crumble away, were 
it not that every casual traveler adds a stone to the heap. The Irish 
Church is a memorial of our forefathers’ crimes,—a standing insult to 
the proscribed race. Every new appointment keeps it still standing,— 
a rude, coarse remembrancer of past English oppression and a result 
of continued English wrong. The House is now asked to assert that 
the alien Establishment which has been so productive of misunder¬ 
standing and discord may henceforth cease ; nor will it withhold an 
emphatic assent to that resolve. Mr. Gladstone’s first Resolution 
carries conquest in its nature and in its tone ; nor could the Liberal 
party have a nobler leader than one who on the clear issue has manfully 
staked his character and his career. 

You have written a “Durham Letter.”" The crisis of England, you 
assert, as well as the crisis of Ireland, is at hand. A powerful party 
has, you tell us, avowed that it seeks to destroy “that sacred union be¬ 
tween Church and State which has hitherto been the chief means of our 
civilization, and is the only security for our religious liberty.” I congra- 

* Yesterday you addressed tlie following letter to the Earl of Dartmouth, Presi¬ 
dent of the National Union of Conservative and Constitutional Associations:_ 

“ 10, Downing-street, March 24, 1868. My Lord—I have received with pride and 
gratitude the memorial of the Council of the National Union and of the Constitu¬ 
tional Associations connected with that body, in which they express their confidence 
in me, and their thorough determination to support, by all means in their power, 
the Government which I have formed by the command and with the approval of her 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


177 


tulate you on this masterpiece of insinuation. Separate, you virtually 
say, the Church from the State in Ireland, and Roman Catholicism 
will, with giant strides, begin to regain the position from which it was 
cast down three hundred years ago. Encourage Roman Catholicism 
in Ireland, and it will receive new life in England, The Jesuits will get 
hack their old power. Oxford and Cambridge will fall a prey to their 
wiles. The Church will be corrupted. The priest will once^more exer¬ 
cise his hated despotism over English households. Thus all the detested 
tyranny of Rome will again flourish on English soil, because, prompted 
by an unscrupulous passion for power, Mr. Gladstone is determined to 
destroy one of the great Protestant strongholds. Every Englishman who 
hates Popery, who hates persecution, and who loves household purity, 
should therefore rally round the Government, and save the Irish Church. 
Such is your appeal, and a wilder appeal has seldom been made by 
a British statesman. Between the Irish and English Church there is 
no more resemblance than there is between the Episcopalians of England 
and the Cameronians of Scotland. Thirty years ago it might as well 
have been argued that, if we gave an independent Parliament to Canada, 
we should be bound to confer the same Institution on Scotland; that 
having conferred it on Scotland; we should next have to confei it on 
Wales; that, having bestowed it on Wales, we should next have to 
bestow it on Yorkshire ; that, having thus favored Yorkshire, we should 
be forced to grant a similar distinction to the rest of the chief English 
counties ; and thus that half-a-dozen years would bring back England 
to the condition of the Heptarchy. Statesmen should be above preach¬ 
ing such nonsense to the Nation. Y r ou in particular, should be above 
it, when you know what fountains of prejudice you are striving o 
unlock. Great part of your life has been spent, and most honorably 
spent, in battling against religious prejudice. You know better > than 
almost any other man, how strong, how unreasonable Gnat prejudice 
often is in England. And, as you are well aware, of all the prejudices 
which sway the uneducated people of this country, that against the 
religion of Rome is the most bitter. Nor, with the history of Britain 
before me, can I say that the animosity is groundless. But, remem¬ 
bering the Gordon riots of London, and the faction fights of Ireland, a 
true British statesman should shrink from raising the cry of No 
Popery” as he would shrink from giving the signal for a civil war. We 
must have no mob legislation London must not be l^ed to a 
right conclusion by the blaze of burning chapels If the Irish Church 
is founded on Justice, let it stand. If, on the other hand, it is founded 
on injustice, if it is a badge of oppression, if for centuries it has cursed 
Ireland with a disquiet which has required the repressive force of ten 
thousand men, then we must not be guided by claptraps about Pio es- 
tant ascendency, but must declare that, as a State Church, the lush 
Establishment 'must cease to exist. Fortunately, we do not lack 

SBfWS&SSg Slit'S &S A o—. 

mg 

yours sincerely,—B. Disraeli. 


178 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING- SWORD OF 


tion in opposition to that which was recently made by the Protestant 
gentry and clergy at Dublin. And the contrast between the rival 
meetings is striking. The Church Defence Association foully calum¬ 
niated their own Church by speaking as if Protestantism meant a 
religion founded on an Act of Parliament, as if in Ireland that religion 
could not exist without a protective duty of half a million pounds a 
year, and as if the State were bound to make Ireland something like a 
hell upon earth in order to protest against the idolatry of the mass. 
At Limerick the language was very different. There the professors 
of the purer creed received from the members of the less pure a signal 
rebuke. No bigoted word was uttered. No attempt was made to 
vilify Protestantism. On the contrary, in the name of the meeting, 
Lord Dunraven disavowed any antagonism with the members of the 
Established Church, and expressed his high esteem for its pastors. 
He did not demand even that the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland 
should take the place of the Protestant as an Establishment. All that 
he required was, that the creed of the many should be placed on an 
equality with the creed of the few. Such a speech is an eloquent 
rebuke, alike to the frenzied fanaticism of the Defence Association and 
to the laboriously dramatic Protestantism of our literary Prime Mi¬ 
nister. Nor does that speech stand alone for 3 r our instruction and 
reproof. If you look to Russia and to Austria, you should at once see 
how you ought not, and how you ought, to behave during the present 
crisis. Each of these countries has her Ireland. Russia has chosen 
the strong hand of repression as the instrument of peace. To the 
demands of Poland she would not listen, but told the people that they 
must either become Russians or die. Already Poland has disappeared 
from the map, and its conquerors are destroying the very language of 
the people. That is one method of repression, hut it is not the method 
which Britain can choose. A far different plan has been chosen by 
Austria, which has at last resolved to govern Hungary in accordance 
with the wishes of the Hungarian people, and which is already reaping 
her reward in such contentment as the old school of statesmen never 
expected to witness. Profiting by the new tranquillity, Austria has 
fought and won a great battle over priestly power, and has gone 
far to establish religious equality among her people. We British are 
now asked to fight and win a similar battle. We have to conquer a 
stronghold of ecclesiastical injustice, founded in days when men did 
not know what religious freedom meant; and we have to bestow the 
unexampled blessing of religious equality on a people whom we have 
governed with such perverse skill, that Protestantism,—the religion of 
equality,—has, in their eyes, come to mean the symbol of religious 
oppression. Austria has recently set us an illustrious example. Once 
the stronghold of religious bigotry, she is now teaching free, Protestant 
Britain the. great lesson taught to rulers by the Reformation,—the 
lesson that in the eyes of the State, men of all religions are equal, and 
that the State has no right to force even the truest religion upon any 
people against their will. I wish I could believe that the lesson had 
been thoroughly learned by every member of the “ governing classes” 
in our own land. But it is. difficult to cherish any such hope when I 
hear the language which is used in high places. At an Orange Lodge 
I do not look for a display of calm logic, and I am not surprised to 
hear arguments which have been dragged from the lowest abysses of 
fanatical hate. But the House of the Lords,—that is, the House of 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


179 


the Uncommon men,—is not an Orange Lodge. That august assembly 
might he expected to present an example of high-minded tolerance. 
Hence I read with pain such a debate as that on the Ecclesiastical 
Titles Act. Since the day when, in the reign of William III, the 
House of the Common men tried to stop a wholesale system of plunder 
by passing the impotent resolution that the holders of office under the 
Crown should not receive more than £500 a year, that House has been 
guilty of nothing more foolish than the passing of the Ecclesiastical 
Titles Act. The measure was passed in a frenzy of fanaticism and 
fright. It was allowed to drop out of sight on the morning of bitter 
repentance which followed the night of the sectarian debauch. Most 
of the men who supported the Bill are now so heartily ashamed of the 
work, that they would, if they could, blot the record of their blunder 
from the Statute Book. The Reformers of Britain might have expected, 
therefore, that in the House of the Lords not a word would now be 
said in defence of the mistake. And the expectation is so far satisfied 
by the terms in which the Act was characterized by some of the peers 
on Thursday night, when Lord Stanhope proposed that it should be 
referred to a select committee. Lord Stanhope himself frankly con¬ 
fessed that, in voting for it, he had done wrong; and even Tories like 
Lord Clanricarde, Lord Cairns, and Lord Malmesbury did not deny 
that it had been mischievous, and that it must be repealed. But Lord 
Redesdale was true to his Toryism, and the Duke of Somerset was false 
to his Liberalism; for both stubbornly expressed their unrepentance, 
and contended that the Act must still be maintained. And why ? 
Because, says Lord Redesdale, it is a protest against the Pope’s assump¬ 
tion of power to call one clerical gentleman the Archbishop of West¬ 
minster, another the Bishop of Southwark, and a third the Bishop of 
Clifton. Because adds his lordship, if the Pope may confer such titles, 
he may grant British subjects dispensations with regard to certain 
marriages, and may thus allow an uncle to marry his niece. Because, 
adds the Duke of Somerset, the Roman Catholic titles are an outrage 
on the dignity of the Crown and on the Protestant feelings of the 
country. °That is, to prevent one old gentleman from calling another 
old Gentleman by a big name which nobody need use unless he likes, 
and to prevent the same old gentleman from sanctioning a marriage 
which the law of Britain will not recognize, we must decree that the 
old gentleman who wears the title shall be fined £100, and we must allow 
thatTlaw to remain a dead letter. Was a more preposterous argument 
ever uttered in a legislative assembly? Tet this, it seems, is tne sort 
of arguments on which you rely. You will, however, be disappointed. 
Whatever response Orange fanaticism may give to your appeal, the 
intelligence of the Nation will not be beguiled by a weak copy of the 
Durham letter into the irreparable blunder of supporting ilie Irish 
Church Establishment. 

In the great Parliamentary campaign which will be inaugurated by 
the House of the Common men, on next Monday evening, it is well 
that the first battle should be fought on the broad and direct issue 
raised by Lord Stanley’s amendment. Estimated at its true value, 
the proposition put forth by the noble lord is equivalent to a motion in 
support of “ the previous question,” accompanied by certain expressions 
in favor of “ modifications” which are so vague that they may tend to 
weaken rather than to strengthen the Parliamentary method of pro¬ 
cedure which the Foreign Secretary has thought fit to adopt. The 

M 


180 


THE SHARP SPEAK AND FLAMING SWOKD OF 


common sense of the House, however, is seldom, if ever, over-weighted 
by the details and intricacies of debate, and the question upon which 
the first division will be taken, in reality amounts to this :—Is the 
admission that considerable modifications in the temporalities of the 
United Church in Ireland may, after a pending inquiry, appear to be 
expedient, more satisfactory under existing circumstances than Mr. 
Gladstone’s uncompromising assertion that as a State Church the 
Protestant Establishment in Ireland must cease to exist ? Those who 
are acquainted with the present temper of the House of the Common 
men, and with the general state of Public opinion, will find little 
difficulty in answering the question. Whatever Lord Stanley may 
have to say with regard to the form of action which the Liberal party 
has determined upon adopting—and he will doubtless have much to say r 
that will be worthy of attention—his amendment will be negatived, 
and the ground will be cleared for the discussion of the grand prin¬ 
ciple which the leader of the Opposition has embodied in his first 
Resolution. With a promptitude almost unparalleled in the annals of 
political discussion, the enlightened opinion of the Nation has already 
declared itself in favor of Mr. Gladstone’s conclusion ; and so far as it 
is possible to anticipate the results of a Parliamentary struggle involving 
such great and important interests, I may safely assume that a Liberal 
majority will support the cause which has been so ably and courage¬ 
ously championed by the member for South Lancashire. This result, 
which must ensue if the members of the Opposition are true to their 
faith and to their party, will be in itself a grand gain and a new source 
of strength to a body of Bepresentatives already too long mistrusted 
and disorganized. Mr. Gladstone will once more stand forth as the 
active and successful leader of the Liberals ; whilst his followers will 
have deservedly regained the approval of their constituents and the 
confidence of the Nation. The cause of Reform in Ireland,—of such 
Reform as will assuage the miseries produced by misgovernment and 
neglect, and carry the promise of peace and contentment to every dis¬ 
trict of a suffering land,—will remain in the hands of Mr. Gladstone, 
and of those who follow him in his mission of mercy and of justice. 
But the fate of the second and third Resolutions is not so easily dis¬ 
cerned. They involve, without doubt, questions of grave legal and 
constitutional importance ; they afford a plausible ground for debate to 
such of the “weak-kneed” brethren as the Liberals have the misfortune 
to number in their ranks ; and they are bound up with the issue which 
some of that fraternity consider important—whether or not the present 
Government is to remain in power and finish the work of the Session. 
It is for these grounds that I cannot for the moment augur any result 
beyond the passing of the first Resolution. And, should Mr. Glad¬ 
stone’s efforts be productive of that result alone, he will have little 
cause for regret. Reformers, who have unflaggingly sustained the 
demand for ecclesiastical equality, would gladly welcome the action 
implied by the propositions as they r stand; but whatever may be the 
issue of the debate which will commence on the evening of Monday 
first, the final abolition of the Established Church in Ireland as it 
now exists, is the cause which the Opposition have most earnestly in 
view. With the passing of the first Resolution the doom of the unjust 
Protestant ascendency will be sealed, and the eloquent and energetic 
speech of the Liberal Leader will have received the most practical 
endorsement from the Parliament of Britain and from the popular 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


181 


opinion of the Empire. Meanwhile it is worthy of notice that the 
policy which Mr. Gladstone now asks the House of the Common men 
to approve, is one which he has consistently advocated for upwards of 
twenty years. Those wdio declare that his present attack upon the 
Irish Establishment is a novelty or an after-thought say what is simply 
untrue. In the great debate on the second reading of the Maynooth 
College Bill, which was moved by Sir Robert Peel, in April, 1845, the 
present leader of the Opposition supported the motion by arguments 
so bold for the temper of the time as to rouse the ire of the extreme 
“Protestant” party. “I think,” said he, “that common honesty 
binds us to admit the Roman Catholics of Ireland to be tree to urge 
their claims against the State upon a footing of equality with other reli¬ 
gious bodies .” Seizing hold of the unwonted avowal, many opponents 
of Sir Robert Peel insinuated that he favored the liberal doctrines of 
his younger colleague ; on which Mr. Gladstone declared that he spoke 
only for himself, but he reiterated, in explicit terms, the doctrine of 
religious equality in Ireland. “He felt that the acceptance of this 
measure would put out of the way, and dispose of, the religious objec¬ 
tion to the further measure of the payment of the clergy. He could 
not conceal from himself that if he voted for that Bill in the present 
Session he could not in a future Session profess, on the ground of a 
religious scruple, to oppose the payment of the clergy of that Church. 
Such were the notable words uttered on the 17th of April, 1845 ; and 
from the position that Mr. Gladstone then took he has never swerved. 
Party spirit will impute to the Liberal chief all kinds of evil designs and 
devices, but even the frenzy of placemen will not attribute to him the im¬ 
practicable feat of forging or tampering with the back volumes of Hansard. 
It would be an almost endless task to cite all the occasions in the lasu 
score of years on which the leader of the Liberal party has ioresliadoved 
the doom of the Parliamentary institution which usurps the name of 
a National Church. Let me refer to the course of the debate on Mi. 
Dillwyn’s motion in March, 1865, “ That in the opinion of this House 
the present position of the Irish Church Establishment is unsatisfac¬ 
tory, and calls for the early attention of her Majesty’s Government. 
Mr. Gladstone, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequei in Loid 
Palmerston’s Government, declared that the acceptance ot the principle 
involved in the motion was merely a question of time. “ What, . said 
he, “ is the position of the Irish Church Establishment ? It is this. 

In a nation of five or six millions of people, about 600,000 or 700,000 
have the exclusive possession ot the ecclesiastical property ^of the 
country intended to be applied to the religious instruction of all. Anc 
here I touch the point on which the right honorable gentleman has 
mainly relied throughout the long controversy, that revenues enjoyed 
by a comparatively small sect were originally bestowed for the benefit 
of the whole people of Ireland,—that the charge of spoliation rests or 
points, not against those who would distribute the fund, but against 
those who strive to perpetuate its sectarian character. “ I am bound 
to say,” he continued, in answer to a previous speaker, “that I must 
differ from the doctrine to which the honorable member appears to 
incline, that the Protestants in Ireland, or the members of the Esta¬ 
blished Church in any one of the three kingdoms, are solely entitled, to 
have provision made for their spiritual wants without any regard being 
paid to the requirements of the remaining portion ol the population. Nei¬ 
ther our Constitution nor our history will warrant such a conclusion. 


182 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


“ It is not,” he afterwards remarked, “too hastily to he assumed that the 
exclusive and peculiar position of the Irish Established Church is to he 
regarded as necessarily useful to the progress of Protestantism. No 
doubt it relieves members of the Protestant Church in a great degree 
from the duty and business of making provision for their own spiritual 
requirements ; hut it is a mistake to suppose that the exclusive establish¬ 
ment of one religion is, in all circumstances, favorable to the progress 
of that religion.” It would he tedious to cull from this remarkable 
speech all the passages which point to the ultimate dissolution of the 
statutory establishment; enough has already been cited to show that 
Mr. Gladstone preaches to-day the doctrine which he has unswervingly 
advocated in the House of the Common men for a quarter of a century, 
and which he has never hesitated to avow, even in circumstances of 
great difficulty, when he was the colleague of such reserved statesmen 
as Sir Robert Peel and Lord Palmerston. People who profess to be 
surprised at the pending Resolutions must find it politic to ignore the 
debate on Sir John Gray’s motion of May the 7th last year, and the 
strong animadversions which Mr. Gladstone then pronounced upon 
the shameful ecclesiastical abuses perpetrated in Ireland. Sir John 
Gray asked the House to resolve itself into committee “ to consider the 
temporalities of the Established Church in Ireland.” At that time 
Reformers were in the very thick of the Reform fight, and Mr. Gladstone 
knew that it w r as hopeless to invite Parliament to consider Hibernian 
grievances ; but nothing could be more distinct than the denunciation 
of the Irish Establishment which he then uttered. “ Even if a Church 
were not the Church of the mass of the people,” he said, “you might 
perhaps maintain it, if it were the Church of the mass of the poorer 
portion of the population. Is that the case in Ireland ? No ; then the 
religion of the Established Church is the religion of the few. You 
cannot, therefore, maintain the Established Church in Ireland on the 
ground of truth, on the ground that it is the church of the mass of the 
population, or on the ground that it is the Church of the mass of the 
poorer portion of the population.” The whole speech was a powerful 
indictment against the religious ascendency which Acts of Parliament 
have imposed upon millions of the people of Ireland. In indignant 
terms Mr. Gladstone asked whether “Englishmen or Scotchmen would 
tolerate in their respective countries such a state of things as exists in 
Ireland ?” And yet, after denouncing the Irish Establishment for more 
than twenty years, the leader of the Liberal party is designated by the 
Tories a factious politician who has suddenly taken up the cause of 
religious equality in order to serve the purposes of a party ! The truth 
is, however, that his Resolution for the disestablishment of the Irish 
Church expresses the conviction of a lifetime. Moreover, it expresses 
the conviction to which the people of Britain have come, and which 
the Parliament of Britain will affirm. 

On the eve of the great political struggle round the walls of the 
Irish Established Church it may be well fairly to estimate the numbers 
and influence of the Irish Protestants who are still ready to support 
the condemned institution. Great misconceptions to which the Irish 
Tory Press give the utmost encouragement prevail upon this subject. 
They are cordially shared by you, as shown in your speech the other 
week, and they are industriously repeated by your partizan organs 
throughout the nation. You said last Monday week—“ Sir, in 
my opinion, a policy in Ireland of conciliation, which is to commence 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


188 


by outraging the feelings and humiliating the pride of one million and 
a half of men, the most intelligent and wealthy and high-spirited, is not 
a wise policy.” These words were received with Ministerial cheers. 
Now, of all men at this day, it surely is of the utmost importance that 
the British Prime Minister, whoever he may be, should have accurate 
ideas of the facts, before committing himself to a policy which he seeks 
to defend by menacing and inflammatory language. You are, however, 
utterly wrong in your facts. There are not a million and a half of 
Irish Protestants whose feelings will be outraged by removing the 
Establishment known as the State Church, on the principle of religious 
equality; there are not one million oi these men so ready to take offence 
at a tardy act of justice; there are not, as I shall presently show, even 
half a million of such uncompromising fire-eaters. The first condition 
for a just solution ot the problem about to be submitted to the 
Legislature is correct knowledge ; and you to whom it so immediately 
concerns that you should know well what you are doing, it is lament¬ 
able, therefore, that you are in a state of complete ignorance. The 
language you used is based on the popular English theory that all 
Ulster is Protestant, and that all Ulster is fanatically devoted to the 
maintenance of the Irish Established Church. Now, Ulster is not all 
Protestant. The Catholics are now a majority in this so-called 1 10 - 
testant province, the relative proportions being as fifty-one to forty- 
nine. The Protestants are, therefore, barely one half of the population; 
and, if considered now as one half, it may be confidently affirmed 
that not one-fourth will regard the disestablishment of the Protestant 
Episcopalian Church as a grievance. The census of 1861 is not an 
unerring index of the present condition of Ireland. I he population 
has since then diminished in proportions pretty nearly equal; and I 
need not remind you that the emigration has, as Lord Dufferm insists, 
been as extensive in Ulster as in two other Irish provinces. The data 
supplied by the census of 1861- are quite sufficient, however, to demolish 


* “ There is no need for any further information on the question of the Irish 
Church before legislating, as everything is only too well known for the Irish Esta¬ 
blishment and its advocates in Parliament,” says one of the leading London daily 
muers of yesterday. “ The census of 1801 showed the population of Ireland to be 
rather over five and a half millions. Out of that number, more than tour and a half 
millions were Catholics, while over half-a-milhon were Tto*\&en*na ._ The adhe¬ 
rents of the Established Church in Ireland numbered only 693,3o7. To state the 
case in a different form, the members of the Protestant establishment formed only 
ii o Der cen t of the gross population, while the Catholics numbered 11 .7 per cent., 
and the Presbyterians 9.0 per cent.-tlie other Protestant denominations being only 
1 4 ner cent ‘ The adherents of the Establishment m Ireland are, therefore, little 
more than a tithe of the great body of the population. A Commission is presently 
sitting to inquire into the revenues of the Church ; but information on that point 
is already pretty full and accurate. We know that the nett yearly revenue ot t ie 
Church exceeds £600,000. Of that sum £55,110 are spent on the archbishoprics 
and bishonrics and nearly £400,000 on the benefices, the remainder being money 

spent by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the rest 011 ’ f P me°Establisli’ 

T ii many of the parishes in Ireland there is not a single adherent of the LWiblr li- 
rnent "to be found, and to conceal as far as possible this anomaly, several parishes 
included in one benefice. Thus we are told ‘ the benefice of Ardelare, m the 


are 


diocese of Elphin, consi 


consists two parishes, of the respective Church populations of 0 and 3, total 3 
the benefice of Dononaughta, in the diocese of Clenfert, conaste of seven panshes 
xi,- rpoppetive Church populations ol which are 9/, 20, 9, 14, u, orf, ana 4i, ioi ■ 
231; the benefice of Hereto™,m the tUoeeeeof Fo^,co^tee1^btgmjhee,tte 
•espective Church populations of which are 66, 44, 0, 13, 0, 0, 4-, 10, tota , 


slats of’three parishes, the respective Church populations of 
7 total 14; the benefice of Kilcorkev, in the same diocese, 

-l ii* __ ^ f A Q IaI a 1 • 


r 


184 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


your assumptions and those of the obedient Tory Press. In 1861 the 
people in Ireland of the Established Church numbered 693,857; the 
Presbyterians were 523,291; and other Protestant Dissenters, includ¬ 
ing the Wesleyan Methodists, amounted to 76,661. By no system of 
enumeration could the Protestants of Ireland of every denomination be 
made, in 1861, to amount to a million and a half of the people; and, at 
the present day, it may he doubted whether the number is much more 
than a million. But it is absurd to set down that million as devoted 
to the Established Church. It has been conclusively shown by the 
Liberal Press of this country that the late demonstrations through¬ 
out Ireland were principally composed of the members of the Esta¬ 
blishment ; that the Presbyterians and Wesleyan Methodists took, 
with very few, and generally very insignificant exceptions indeed, no 
part in the recent agitation. On the question whether religious 
equality is to be produced by general endowment of all persuasions, as 
recommended by you and Lord Mayo, or by the mere disestablishment 
of the Irish Church, as advised by Mr. Gladstone and the Liberal 
party, there can be no doubt whatever that the Protestant Dissenters in 
Ireland will not even be passive and apathetic. They will take a 
decided and energetic part in support of the course recommended by 
Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Bright. The Government over wdiich you 
preside have themselves formally abandoned the principle of ascen¬ 
dency. Why should the Nonconformists be expected to adopt a policy 
which, by endowing all religions, surrenders every Protestant principle 
in favor of an Establishment, and of which the actuating motive is 
the preservation of the revenues of the Church to the rich landed gentry, 
their favorites, and their dependents ? At the next census it may be 
doubted whether the Establishment will be found to have five hundred 
thousand actual members in Ireland. It is well known that the 
system of enumeration adopted gives great advantage to the Establish¬ 
ment in swelling its returns. Every person who does not make a 
positive profession of being of other religious denominations is unhesit¬ 
atingly put down a member of the State Church, though there are many 
people in the list who have never entered into communion with that 
Church, and are quite indifferent to it and to all its pretensions. It 
■would be doing great injustice to many sincere members of the 
Establishment in Ireland to represent them as ready to support it 
according to the principle of ascendency. There are many intelligent 
Liberal Episcopalian Protestants even in Ulster; and they will be "glad 
to see their Church contending on equal terms with the Churches of other 
persuasions, and divested of an invidious and untenable supremacy. 
Mr. Gladstone’s Resolutions have, in every point of view, the great 
merit of rendering the issue to be placed before the new electors, clear 
and intelligible to the meanest capacity. They will render the course 

benefice of Kilcoglan, in the diocese of Kilmacdaugli, consists of nine parishes, of the 
respective Church populations of 7, 0, 0, 0, 10, 8, 10, 1, 0, total 36. The value of the 
last-named benefice is £413.’ In all Ireland there are 199 parishes (not benefices 
be it remarked), where there are no Church Protestants; 575 parishes, each con¬ 
taining not more than 20 members of the Established Church; 416 parishes 
containing 20, and not more than 50, members of the Established Church; and 
349 containing more than 50, and not more than 100 members of the Establish¬ 
ment. As regards benefices , tables have been published showing that there are 
443 of them with less than one hundred members of the State Church. The total 
Church membership of these 443 benefices is 20,396; and the aggregate nett revenue 
is £97,903, giving an average nett rate of £221 for each benefice,’ and an average 
cost per head of £4 16s,” 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


1B5 


means another; who mistakes intrigue ior staiesmansmjj; auu wuu, ^ 
playing off Members against each other in the “House,’ is forgetful ot 
the Nation and of any cause in which earnest and conscientious men 
can believe. Dismissing for the present occasion the frivolous and mock¬ 
ing style of the speech you made on Monday, when you came foiward 
in°a grave and apparently earnest manner to assure the Leader of the 
Opposition that you would give him every facility for the discussion ot 
the Resolutions, which, whether they be carried or not at the present 
time, cannot but gravely affect the existence oi the Irish Establish¬ 
ment. They are no laughing matter, as even the clergymen of the 
Established Church here know very well. You did not consider them 
a laughing matter. But, in replying to Mr. Gladstone’s request tor a 
day, you resumed your style of mock humility, and affected deference 
to the “ House.” Mr. Gladstone was in the hands of the “House. 

It was the “ House” that would sit in judgment on the Resolutions. 

It was the “ House” that would determine when and how they should 
be discussed. You put yourself forward as the interpreter oi the 
“ House” as against Mr. Gladstone. You wished to make it under¬ 
stood that the Leader of the Opposition was but an individual Member, 
and not the Leader of a great party, and of a considerable majority, 
even in that “House,” of which you professed to be, as the bpeaker 
of old, in answer to Charles the First, only the eyes, the ears and 
the tongue. Your cunning allusions to the “ House’ occur not less 
than sixteen times in the short reply you gave to Mr. Gladstone on 

It is evident that it suits your purpose to prevent your House 
from coming to an independent and unbiased opinion on the important 
political question at issue. The Irish Church is acknowledged o be 
m so desperate a position that any hopes of warding oft an emphatic 
condemnation of it, by a House not supposed to be the most libeial 
and earnest that has been chosen during this generation, depend on 
keeping before it a threat of a sudden termination ot its existence m 
the middle of this Session. Last year, the Liberal members were told 
that, if they did not accept a most unsatisfactory /efctnh^tio 
scheme which, as every one now acknowledges, has leu the vnole 
question open for the Reformed Parliament to deal with, they would 
not have the liberal reduction of the Franchise contained m the new 
English Reform Act. Now they are told that, if they .^ppoit y *• 
Gladstone in an unequivocal declaration oi Irish policy, m onlei t ... 
theTew electors may, when called upon, have an opportunity of ex¬ 
pressing fully their verdict upon it, the labors oi the Session sha 11. ->e 
interrupted and a moribund House shall, for no conceivable object 
whatever be sent to meet its equally moribund constituencies. W as 
there ever anything more audacious than the employment of such 
menaces 9 This is not a case in which an Administration finds itse 
suddenly "deprived of the confidence of the House ot the Common men 
and therefore feels it imperative either to resign or to appeal to the 
Nation Your Administration never has had the confidence of the 
Nation! It undertook, under the close surveillance of the House to 
do a work which the Tory party, aided by some insincere Liberals, me 
prevented Mr. Gladstone and the late Government from doing. But 


186 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


it has only been able to accomplish this task in a partial and bungling 
manner by abandoning many of the highest Ministerial functions to the 
House.« It is not a question whether the Nation shall or shall not he 
appealed to. Within a very short time, indeed, the representatives of 
the people must not only face their present constituents, hut the new 
constituents. The passing of the Resolutions by the House of the 
Common men, cannot therefore render your position more unsettled 
than it now is. You know that you have not a majority. If you 
were, by a premature dissolution, to have a majority returned for you 
by the present constituencies, that affirmation would not render your 
tenure of office less precarious. If that appeal were unfavorable to 
you, another dissolution soon afterwards would still be necessary and 
indispensable. A dissolution at the present time could, therefore, have 
no political effect whatever. It could answer no useful purpose. The 
menace of it is essentially dishonest; and if the attempt were seriously 
made to execute it, then, it could easily be frustrated. Besides, a majority 
that shall pass Mr. Gladstone’s Resolutions can also prevent you from 
carrying this threat into effect. A dissolution at the beginning of the 
Parliamentary season can never take place. The Budget must be 
produced ; the Supplies must be voted ; The Appropriation Bill must 
be passed. These proceedings all require some time. It cannot be 
difficult also to pass, with them, the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills, 
that the new constituencies may be complete. As the House, with 
the Supplies unvoted, and as yet the Mutiny Bill not passed, has it in 
its power to prevent a dissolution at the present time, it would be 
bound to exercise that power, and refuse, even at some inconvenience 
to the Nation, to afford any facilities to a Minister, like you, capable 
of acting so desperately and shamelessly. But the threat is not seriously 
intended. It is put forward to afford the lukewarm Liberals an excuse 
for deserting their Leader on the plea of public convenience. The 
British people shall be again told that it would be wrong to throw the 
Nation into confusion on the issue of the Irish Church, when, in fact, 
the only person who can throw the Nation into confusion on this 
question is the Minister who would think of dissolving Parliament at 
present, and of appealing to the old constituencies on a policy which 
the new constituencies only can negative or affirm. The time is ripe 
for the great change, and no Government, however strong or obstinate, 
can resist what the voice of three Nations loudly demands. The Tories 
would, if they could, uphold the Institution which is a disgrace to the 
Government, as well as a wrong to the governed; but the awakened 
intelligence of the people will not brook either compromise or delay. 

I am, dear Sir, as you may observe, in continuation, as unsparing 
in criticizing your Protean conduct, as I am sincerely desirous of 
imparting to you that political knowledge which may show you, that, 
after all, honesty of purpose is one of the best elements of even a 
Literary Prime Minister’s policy, 


John Scott. 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


187 


LETTER IX. 

Belfast, 59, Victoria Terrace, 
March 27th, 1868. 

John Bright, Esq., M.P. 

Dear Sir,— On next Monday will commence one of the most im¬ 
portant Parliamentary battles of the century,—which will put the 
members of the House of the Common men to a severe and practical 
test —which will strongly affect the first elections under the new 
Reform Bill—which will materially modify the constitution and 
objects of parties, and exercise a powerful influence on the condition 
of Ireland. The Defence Associations are only making the doomed 
Establishment more odious, and weakening more and more the scanty 
power of the Ministry. The fierce, intolerant spirit displayed at those 
anti-Christian meetings must convince honest men oi every form of 
religion of the pressing necessity of removing for ever the fruitful somce 
of civil dissensions and sectarian feuds. Nor are some of the members 
of the Tory Cabinet themselves deficient m the artifices by which the 
timid are swayed, and the wavering secured. Industrious reports of 
dissolution are circulated, and visions of imaginary danger to the 
Constitution are conjured up with all the extravagant, embellishmen 
of cunning fancy ; and no weapon that can aid the nailing cause is left 
untried. The insolent and tyrannical factions who would fam make 
a sport of the fortunes and liberties of then* fellow-men, have made the 
friends of freedom and equality more determined and united m dis¬ 
arming them. When the cause of discord is removed, tranquillity and 
pe^ must follow ; those dissensions by which the people of Ireland 
are^n^asunder would cease ; that spirit of virulence which fibs he 
minds of men with diabolical desires would soon cue out. The de 
fenders of the Establishment seek the ascendency oi a sect; the fnends 
of freedom only seek the ascendency of Justice. They cannot submit 
any longer to the galling, unnatural ascendency of a crew of fanatics, 
wlfo if left to themselves, would plunge the Nation into mourning an 
bloodshed Bigots are not to dictate law to Parliament, or plant the 
iron heel of tyrannv on the necks of millions. Such fanatics, whilst 
hev mil gle ribaldry with profanity, rouse the disgust and horror of 
every sood^man. And, should Mr. Gladstone succeed m dismantling 
,, ^ ^ i -r • i. pVnivch effecting a great national reconciliation, 

andSal n a fo tog ofpUct equality, he will win a renown 
tolh nefther envy, nor time, nor malice, nor prejudice, nor ingratn 
ude can ever dim Mr. Gladstone and his party are not fighting for 
it Z l ev know that deception can be no longer practised with 
place, foi t ; people are to be still the dupes of political 

i..» fa, 

Iieland andb ea( ?? qq spe ech of Mr. Gladstone on the Irish debate 
bring back the oli\e. 1111 j , ^P^oh hv the greatest of living 

heralds happier days^Ju^ and excite 

orators and statesmen, must alv a,yy&ibe^ V The m0 st 

intense interest among all ^ a sneer, which 

staunch opponents of a i. # 1 , , a mon® the Liberals he stands 

^ he sacrifices t0 party 


188 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


tlie brilliant talents with which Nature has gifted him. It was evident 
that he purposed to make a great effort on the evening of the 16tli of 
March, nor did he fail of success. He even surpassed himself on that 
occasion, and cheer after cheer rang through the House as words of 
knowledge and wisdom, and of lofty eloquence fell from his lips. In 
truth, Mr. Gladstone need not fear comparison with the greatest of 
British orators in extent of information, amplitude of comprehension, 
and thrilling and majestic eloquence. But it is not the grandeur of 
feeling he breathes into his periods, nor the breadth of view he casts 
over the subject matter of debate, nor yet his mind filled with the lore 
of every age, every tongue, and every nation ;—it is not any of these 
gifts,—grand and commanding though each of them may be,—that 
most wins public admiration. It is the sincerity and earnestness -with 
which he devotes attention,—these are the qualities that merit uni¬ 
versal praise, and add new lustre to every talent he possesses. 

Mr. Gladstone will open the battle of the century by proposing the 
following Ilesolutions :—“ 1. That, in the opinion of this House, it is 
necessary that the Established Church of Ireland should cease to exist 
as an Establishment, due regard being had to all personal interests and 
to all individual rights of property.” “ 2. That, subject to the fore¬ 
going considerations, it is expedient to prevent the origination of new 
jiersonal interests by the exercise of any public patronage, and to con¬ 
fine the operations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of Ireland to 
objects of immediate necessity, or involving individual rights, pending 
the final decision of Parliament.” “ 8. That an humble address be 
presented to her Majesty, humbly to pray, that, with a view to the 
purposes aforesaid, her Majesty will be graciously pleased to place at 
the disposal of Parliament, her interest in the temporalities of the 
archbishoprics, bishoprics, and other ecclesiastical dignities and bene¬ 
fices in Ireland, and in the custody thereof;”—and it is very generally 
expected that he will obtain a great majority which will advance and 
hasten the settlement of this great question, and place Mr. Disraeli’s 
Administration in a very awkward position. Mr. Disraeli has pro¬ 
posed that, if possible, the division shall take place on Friday evening, 
and that the House shall immediately adjourn for the holidays, be¬ 
cause, as he says, after a struggle of that kind, there would be no use 
entering the next week for business. 

For some days rumors have been afloat respecting a number of 
amendments to Mr. Gladstone’s Resolutions on the Irish Church; and 
already the terms of three of them are known—those of Mr. Laing, 
Mr. Watkin, and Lord Stanley. Mr. Laing proposes no change in 
the text of the three Resolutions ; but, should they be carried, he will 
move the addition of a fourth, to the effect, that, “ while the principle 
of disestablishing the Irish Church has been affirmed by the House, 
the question is too important to be settled without an appeal to the 
constituencies originated by the new Reform Act; and, therefore, that 
it will be the duty of the Government to arrange the course of public 
business so as to enable this appeal to be made at the earliest practi¬ 
cable opportunity.” Such a plan must tend to complicate rather than 
to simplify the position. Mr. Gladstone’s Resolutions declare, that 
the Irish Establishment should cease to exist as a State Church;'that, 
pending the final decision of Parliament, it is expedient to make no 
more appointments; and that the Crown should be asked to place at 
the disposal of Parliament its interest in the temporalities of the Irish 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


189 


Church. Now it is clear that, if affirmed, these propositions must he 
immediately embodied in a Bill. Were they to be enforced by the 
Government without the authority of an Act, the House would practi¬ 
cally he legislating on its own responsibility. Until the election of the 
new Parliament—that is, for eight or ten months—no vacancies in the 
Irish Church would he filled up. Hence, for that period, the House 
would carry into effect an important Legislative measure by a mere 
Resolution. That is, it would he usurping authority to which it had 
no legal right; and, so far as one question of momentous importance 
was concerned, the House of the Lords would for the time cease to he 
a branch of the Legislature. Of course, the author of the “measure” 
contemplated no such irregular process ; and, as I have already stated, 
the carrying of the Resolutions must have been forthwith followed up by 
a Bill. That Bill would come before the House of the Common men 
in the usual way, would go through the customary stages, would then 
he sent to the House of the Lords, would receive the assent of the 
Crown, and would thus disestablish the Church without tne slightest 
usurpation of authority. Mr. Laing, however, seeks to prevent the 
House from taking any such course. He would distinctly hind the 
present Parliament not to legislate on the subject. Thus, I repeat, if 
his motion were carried and enforced, the Lower House would, until 
the next election, actually do what Mr. Laing says it ought not to do , 
and, during the interval, the Crown and the Commons would, on one 
subject, practically be legislating without the consent of the Peers. A 
worse proposition, therefore, than that put forward by the right lion, 
gentleman, without any consultation with his party, could hardly be 
conceived ; for, if united to the Resolutions of Mr. Gladstone, it would 
make the whole series so unparliamentary that they v, ould be sanc¬ 
tioned neither by Liberals nor by Tories. Mr. \\ atkin, who has also 
taken independent action, proposes to move as an amendment to Mi. 
Gladstone's first Resolution, that, while the House thinks the future 
position of the Irish Establishment is a question to be finally decided 
by the next Parliament, it affirms that, as a State Church, that Estab¬ 
lishment must cease to exist. These words do not render the inten¬ 
tions of the honorable gentleman sufficiently clear. Does lie intend 
to affirm the second and the third Resolutions, which would stop 
appointments, and would hand over to Parliament the ecclesiastical 
patronage of the Crown; or does he exclude those propositions ? it 
he -accepts them, his course is open to precisely the same objection as 
that which must be brought against Mr. Laing’s. He would involve 
the House in a policy of usurpation, and cut away the only ground on 
which the motions of the Liberal party can be defended. If, on the 
other hand, he intends his amendment to supersede the second and 
third propositions, it is useless. The first does not call for any nnme- 
diate action ; it simply expresses the opinion of the House; ana, were 
it alone carried, there would he no need to embody it m a nil until 
the election of the new Parliament. The clearest and the most straight¬ 
forward course is that which has been taken by Lord Stanley, who 
has raised a distinct issue that no one can misunderstand. As the 
Foreign Secretary has announced, he will meet the motion for going 
into committee oil Monday next with the amendment that the House, 
“while admitting that considerable modifications m tne temporalities 
of the United Church in Ireland may, after a pending inquiry, appear 
to be expedient, is of opinion that any general proposition tending to 


190 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


the disendowment or disestablishment of that Church ought to be 
reserved for the decision of a new Parliament.” This amendment 
meets the Resolutions with a direct bar to their passing, and will pre¬ 
vent honorable gentlemen from raising any side issue. But, although 
it goes strongly and frankly in the face of the Liberal party, it is so 
far a gain that it acknowledges the urgency of the question mooted by 
Mr. Gladstone, and virtually endorses the undertaking to follow up 
the debate with action. Nay more, while it pledges the Government 
to deal with the question on the assembling of the new Parliament, it 
also leaves Mr. Gladstone still more emphatically pledged. Even 
should the amendment be carried, and his Resolutions be set aside by 
the present House, they would still stand on the records of Parliament 
as the irrevocable announcement of the policy which he must initiate 
at the very earliest assemblage of the newly-constituted Parliament. 
Thus, either now or a few months lienee, the battle must be fought on 
the broad issue which has been raised. Meanwhile, the duty of Liberal 
members is to support Mr. Gladstone’s Resolutions against Lord 
Stanley’s amendment; for, in the eyes of the Nation at the next elec¬ 
tion their conduct in choosing between the two counter propositions, 
immediate “disestablishment” or general “modification,” will form 
the test of their genuine Liberalism. 

I clearly observe that the gist of Mr. Gladstone’s Resolutions 
resides in the plain "words, “It is necessary that the Established 
Church of Ireland should cease to exist as an Establishment.” The 
other portions of his Resolutions are simple corollaries to this funda¬ 
mental proposition. The circumstances under which the House of the 
Common men is called upon to vote in favor of this declaration are 
most peculiar. The M.P.’s are the same who would have ranged 
themselves in a majority against it a few months since, or at any pre¬ 
vious period of their term of office ; but now they are expected to 
abandon the evasion and procrastination to which they have been so 
long addicted, and to give their decision in favor of an organic change 
of the highest moment, and involving a long array of Liberal conse¬ 
quences -which many of them foresee, and which most of them dislike. 
They know that the ultimate settlement of this question must take the 
form of Mr. Gladstone’s Resolutions, as the attacking forces are obvi¬ 
ously the most powerful. For the maintenance of the most anomalous 
and offensive institution of modern times, there are the aristocratic 
families who refuse to adapt their conduct to the advance of Liberal 
ideas, the Orange party in Ireland, and the fanatical churchmen in 
England. Against the institution are the great majority of the Bri¬ 
tish nation and seven-eights of the Irish people ; and the new Reform 
Bill, with all its shortcomings and defects, is sure to make the popular 
voice heard distinctly in the next Parliament, declaring that Ireland 
shall no longer be goaded into rebellion by class domination and eccle¬ 
siastical robbery. “ The Church Establishment,” as I have stated in 
my last letter to Mr. Disraeli, “is doomed. Mr. Gladstone’s Resolu¬ 
tions are adapted for its destruction. The House of the Common 
men cannot refuse to treat his proposition with the consideration 
which its vast importance deserves ; and the House of the Common 
men cannot refrain from going further, and condemning and removing 
the greatest scandal of the age. One simply wonders now, how so 
great a reform has been so long delayed, and how it is that a great 
grievance denounced years ago lias been tolerated to a period which 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


191 


ought to have been the witness of its extirpation.. In no spirit of fac¬ 
tion do I hail the triumph that is inevitable. Few know, and few care 
to know, the evil interests that are bound up with the institution 
whose existence is now a matter of months. Were it merely an agency 
of religious teaching, propagating a creed which, although hostile to 
the sentiments of the people, had yet something to recommend it to 
their intelligence, it might be borne with as one of those social afflic¬ 
tions from which there is no escape. It is, however, devoid of a single 
redeeming feature, and charity itself cannot offer it the shadow of pro¬ 
tection. It is happily doomed, and blessings innumerable will flow 
from its destruction. With the Church Establishment will go down 
the greatest evils that ever afflicted Ireland. Ascendency, intolerance, 
the spirit of bigotry, which is the spirit of persecution, will disappear, 
and in its stead there will shine forth in all its purity and brightness, 
the spirit of that pure fraternity which means peace and good-will to 
all mankind. With the Established Church in Ireland have been 
bound the greatest scandal and the greatest grievance of nnsgovern- 
ment. It has been the fruitful mother of intolerance,—the rich source 
of difference and dispute, The symbol of conquest, it became the 
bad^e of political degradation, and to the last it has continued to e 
the exponent of a policy which was as ruthless in its tendency as it 
was unjustifiable in its principle. It is impossible that there could be 
peace in Ireland so long as the Church Establishment continues. 
Pride, arrogance, and bigotry are the products of its existence. It has 
no hold upon the affections and sympathies of the people. It was im¬ 
posed upon them against their will; it has been their great persecutor 
in darker days ; it is still their great oppressor, and it must be got rid 
of, no matter what may be the cost or sacrifice. ^ hen it lias disap¬ 
peared the onlv wonder will be how well it can be dispensed with. 
For over its ruins will spring into life the blessed seeds of harmony 
and peace. In Ireland, then, there will be no vain pretensions to 
superiority,—no offensive assumptions of exclusive privileges based 
upon State orthodoxy. Each sect and party will stand on its own 
merits, and on the disappearance of a false and unjust precedence theie 
will come a righteous and satisfactory equality, which will prove a 
blessing to the land, distracted by many troubles the ^eatest of which 
are and have been the religious bickerings for wlucli the fetate Umich 
is solely responsible. I earnestly hope the existence of that Church r 
drawing to a close, and I cannot exaggerate the satisfaction with which 
1 view° the manly step that Mr. Gladstone has taken for its final 
extinction.” Whatever may be the consequences to Mr. Diskaeli s 
Cabinet, the Liberal party ought to be unanimous and united.upon t ie 
occasion It is probable that, in case of defeat, Mr. Diskaeli will 
endeavor, if possible, to cheer liis followers by inviting them to join in 
an appeal to the Nation. The Tories would naturally hketo e 
their 1 influence as a government upon the nex. elections, the h s 
under their own Reform Bill,—if such it can he called. If beaten 
before Easter upon a Resolution involving no immediate action, t iey 
S proceed after Easter to finish the Irish and Scotch Reform BiUs, 
and do such other business as may he absolutely necessary beioie the 
1mm vacation arrives, and tlie present House of the Common men 
scatters to meet no more. Upon religious fictions. the populatmn 
of the British Empire are making great pro G ress. The . 

diminution of cantankerous bigotry, and a great increase m the dx i 


192 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


sition to act up to the Christian maxim of doing to others as we would 
have them do to us. The public have learnt to regard the Irish ques¬ 
tion from a truly Liberal point of view. Mere expediency is not now 
listened to out of the narrow circles in which it naturally lingers. Is 
it right, or is it wrong ? Is it just or unjust ?—this is the popular 
question about the Irish Establishment, and no quibbles can turn a 
nation on one side 'when it sees its duty, and has made up its mind 
that it shall be done. The Irish Protestant Church will cease to be 
an Establishment—not as a concession to seditious clamor, nor as a 
triumph for Roman Catholicism, hut simply and entirely because the 
meanness and vice of aristocratic government is passing away, and the 
British Nation advancing in intelligence, liberty, and power, decrees by 
acclamation the abolition of the wrong. The present Parliament may 
lay down the principle,—the next Parliament must do the work ; but 
it will not be without a serious struggle that the obstructive classes 
will give way. Mr. Disraeli has placed himself in a false position. 
His last speech pledges him to what he knows is the losing side, as 
well as the w T rong side, of a great Constitutional hglit. The Irish 
Church is, in fact, the rock upon which his party will split. The more 
intelligent will see that it is of no use “kicking against the pricks,” 
and the less intelligent will remain all their lives, dull, dead weights, 
resisting progress to the utmost of their power. A Tory government 
after the next elections will be impossible, and if men who have called 
themselves Tories or Conservatives hold office, it must be on the con¬ 
dition that they act upon Liberal plans. The people have determined 
that no faction shall rule Ireland upon the method of coercion, and 
the leading Liberals, now headed by Mr. Gladstone and yourself, de¬ 
clare that the ecclesiastical obstacle to good government and content¬ 
ment shall absolutely cease. Logically speaking, Mr. Gladstone’s 
Resolutions ought to have been carried long ago. They belong to that 
change which was introduced when the measure known as Catholic 
Emancipation became law. The hostile Establishment of a Protestant 
Church in the midst, and at the expense, of a Roman Catholic Nation, 
was an act of conquest and violence. It was in harmony with a 
system of confiscation of estates and penal laws intended to extirpate 
the Roman Catholic Religion. From the moment that the Liberals 
prevailed, and determined that Ireland should be governed upon Con¬ 
stitutional principles, the Protestant Establishment was a logical 
absurdity as well as a Legislative monstrosity, and it was maintained 
upon flimsy pretexts by aristocratic factions. During the present 
Session,—Will it be enough if the House of the Common men affirms 
the principles of Mr. Gladstone’s Resolutions ?—and leave the next 
Parliament and Session to transfer the struggle to the unreformed and 
most irrational part of the British Constitution,—the hereditary House 
of the Lords, which the Tories are making worse by fresh manufacture 
of obstructive Peers ? Aristocracy and Democracy confront each 
other upon the Irish question in all its branches. Aristocracy is for 
the Protestant Church Establishment, Democracy condemns it. Aris¬ 
tocracy is against Tenant-right, Democracy demands it. Aristocracy 
has one branch of legislation all to itself, and, in spite of the new 
Reform Bill, will exercise great power over the so-called popular 
branch. Democracy claims that whatever distinctions it may be desi¬ 
rable to preserve between an Upper and a Lower Chamber, both 
should be national and representative. The Irish Church question is 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


198 


calculated to bring into striking contrast the merits ot a reformed 
House of the Common men, and the demerits of an unreformed House 
of the Lords. The Tories are right in supposing that when the Irish 
Church is swept away, other changes will follow. Popular opinion 
will certainly not stand still, and a whole group of Liberal measures 
w T ill be demanded of the new House of the Common men, to which the 
Lords will find themselves obliged to submit. We are at that stage 01 
a perfectly safe and peaceful revolution, in which concession is inevi¬ 
table and resistance not only foolish, but dangerous. Alter a time 
will come the natural demand for repose, but the Nation now feels the 
consciousness of new-born strength and power. After years of wait¬ 
ing it perceives that important and beneficial changes are within its 
reach, and for some time to come every victory will stimulate it to 
fresh exertion ; and efforts to thwart it will only serve to bring fresh 
energies into play. The Nation is, in fact, renewing its youth, and a 
wdiolesome consciousness of growth pervades the best portions of 
society. There is nothing that may net be attained by a people proud 
of their past history, exulting in present capacities, and determined to 
place themselves at the head ot civilization. It will be a noble u fling 
if the first act of the people, on their accession to fresh power, should 
be to redress the wrongs of centuries, “ pluck from the memory ot 
Ireland a rooted arrow,” as Mr. Gladstone invites them to do, heal 
the wounds which aristocratic factions have made, and lay broad and 
deep the foundations of future prosperity and good-will. Let the eye 
of each constituency be on its representatives, with a deteimmation 
that at the next election they shall be rejected who faltei 01 fail. 

On one point there seems to be unanimity and determination, and 
that is, the destruction of the Irish State Church. It may now be 
taken for granted that the Establishment in Ireland is doomed, iso 
party can Sustain the edifice which is toppling to its fall. Its last 
prop has been removed, and even Mr. Disraeli, fertile m resources, 
can only appeal for a temporary respite of the sentence which has gone 
forth with the certainty of fate itself. I could wish that on other 
points of greater practical importance there was equal accoid and 
determination ; but time must be relied on to bring about the changes 
which wisdom seems inadequate to suggest. We have no immediate 
prospect of a settlement of the land question. Neither W lug nor 1 ory 
appears competent to deal with it. The interests of the aristocracy, 
or what are assumed to be their interests, bar the way to legislation; 
it is impossible, all at once, to beat down the prejudices which are for¬ 
tified by time, and which have their root m feelings the most difficult 
to influence, much less to overcome. It is only filling the public mind 
with false hopes to hold out any prospect of an adequate settlement oi 
the Land question. That question involves what is practically and 
in principle a great revolution, and the revolution can only be accom¬ 
plished by a change of thought, or circumstances of which I see no 
immediate prospect. The point which Parliament is likely to concede, 
and which no change of party fortune can materially affect, relates to 
the Established Church. No hand, however powerful can stay the 
doom of the Establishment; and this is the sum and substance ot the 
reform which the Irish people may confidently expect. The one 
special measure which specially relates to Ireland, is the inevitable one 
which affects the Church Establishment. What precise form it may 
take, what will be its real scope and final purport it is impossible to 


194 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


say, but tbe fiat of Justice has gone forth, and the last remnant of 
ascendency is devoted to destruction. Although I have ceased to 
regard the coming event as a remarkable change, I can hardly realize 
its full effects. With the Establishment there will go down one great 
curse of Irish Society. The bigotry which has been the shame of 
Europe, which lias armed brother against brother, and torn the land 
with divisions and strife ; which crushed the spirit of patriotism, and 
made Country the smallest consideration in the citizen’s mind,—that 
bigotry lias been nursed by the alien Church which could only exist 
on its support. The ascendency which poisoned all the relations of 
life, which turned a false supremacy into a dangerous tyranny, and 
which kept alive the artifices by which despotism sustains its power, 
is at last doomed ; and it is not too much to say that over its ruins 
there will spring into life and bloom, the fair flow T ers of that fraternity 
whose gospel is good-will and whose mission is freedom. 

Sincerely wishing you a continuation of strength and success in 
your noble endeavors to secure Justice for your fellow-men,—I am, 
dear Sir, yours most cordially in the progressing cause of humanity 
and justice, John Scott. 

— 

LETTEE X. 

Belfast, 59, Victoria Terrace, 
April 1st , 1868. 

The Eight Hon. 13. Disraeli, Prime 
Minister of Britain. 

Dear Sir, —Mr. Gladstone justified his Besolutions on last Monday, 
in a strong and masterly exposition, which was in no sense answered 
by Lord Stanley’s half-hearted and reluctantly-uttered speech. Mr. 
Gladstone rose, in the midst of a volley of cheers from the Opposition, 
which condensed at last into a sound so vehement as to establish at 
least a Liberal unity of imrpose in sound. He began very calmly, and 
throughout never abandoned himself to the impetuous rush of words 
and ideas of which he is so great a master. He went as carefully into 
details as if he were opening an Ecclesiastical Budget, every item of 
which he desired to recommend to the consideration of his opponents. 
For a little while he indulged in an autobiographical vein, and vindi¬ 
cated his consistency in now making a motion which had been matur¬ 
ing in his mind for more than twenty years, and he called for a proof 
that he had ever defended the English Church in Ireland,—in prin¬ 
ciple,—and he referred to the fact that he had paid the penalty of his 
opinion even immaturely stated in 1865, by the loss of his seat for 
Oxford University. “ The time has come for the Establishment in 
Ireland to cease to exist as an Establishment”—that is the principle 
of the Liberal party. The methods of disestablishment and disendow- 
ment, and yet more, the disposition of the surplus funds surviving 
those processes, are points for future treatment. Yet, that no charge 
of vague intentions should be made against him, the Liberal Leader 
outlined the principles to be followed in putting an end to this histo¬ 
rical monstrosity. He would respect to the utmost “ vested interests,” 
would allow congregations to retain churches if they chose to pay for 
them, leave the parishes their glebe and parsonage, compensate the 
owners of advowsons, and even entertain the claims of the cadets of 



POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


195 


the Irish Establishment for their damaged prospects. Here is cer¬ 
tainly no want of tenderness to the delicate feelings of those whose 
religious fervor centers in the region of their pockets ; and Mr. Glad¬ 
stone’s plan of disestablishment would, in fact, leave from two-tliirds 
to three-fifths of the existing revenues in the hands of the “ Anglican 
Communion in Ireland,” as he christens the Establishment. This 
liberal provision it would enjoy without envy ; and, as facts show that 
it has utterly failed to make converts, while its existence has been an 
insult and an eyesore, it could not fare worse, but would probably fare 
much better, with a conscience and a treasury relieved. In point of 
fact, as Mr. Gladstone said, the Irish Church has not been a religious 
so much as a political institution ; and, according to its most sanguine 
advocates, it would succeed, at its present rate, in Protestantizing the 
Irish people in about two thousand years. The time has come when, 
without deceit or delay, the hybrid between Orange politics and terri¬ 
torial piety should be condemned to death as a State institution. The 
mover of the Resolutions pointed out that, the first being abstract, and 
therefore in itself unpractical, it needed the positive definitions of the 
second and third to assure Ireland of the good faith of Parliament, 
and above all, to give instant effect to the determination of Parliament 
by arresting the growth of this baneful incubus. Mr. Gladstone gave 
two specimens of this growth. Last year the benefice of Newton, Lis- 
morc, was originated “ for ever and ever,” with a “congregation of 
four Anglicans, and an endowment of £880 ; and this year Kilmoyle, in 
Tuam, was originated an incumbency with four Anglicans to 2,7/9 
Catholics, also “ for ever.” If the British people are not ready to stop 
such parodies of pious zeal as this,—For what are Reformers ready ? 
Lord Stanley’s “ modifications,” as Mr. Gladstone remarked, will not 
satisfy the Irish; while even the Tory amendment admits the necessity 
of action of some kind. An abstract Resolution to “ act must be 
“ signed and sealed ” by definite propositions to stay the growth of the 
huge and ancient grievance. Such are the second and third proposals 
of the Liberal Leader; and, whether they find their embodiment in a 
provisional Bill, with your name or Mr. Gladstone s name upon its 
back, the mover of the Resolutions insisted, that the House must choose 
between accepting them, or making the spirit of Ireland sick to the 
core with hope deferred. The curious politicians who demand extiacts 
from the History of England commit a sad error : they “ protest too 
much.” The logical force of the quotations for which they call, from 
the Act of Union and King William’s Coronation Oath, if those pas- 
sages had any force, would be to make any change whatever impossible. 
Lord Stanley’s promised modifications would be just as wicked as 
Mr. Gladstone’s Resolutions ; and the hapless conclusion would ensue, 
that what Parliament had once done Parliament could never undo. 
That may have been the principle of the Medes and Persians, and those 
Orientals nmyhave found it suitable to human affairs ol their particular 
period ; but in our day the theory is ridiculous. Lord Stanley hardly 
succeeded better with his replication than these students ol history with 
their researches. He was cold and ineffective to a degree unprecedented 
even for a speaker who never does invoke any other instruments, ot 
debate than common facts. He spoke like a statesman who was doing 
a duty to his party rather than expressing his own sentiments, and 
indeed in more than one sentence the mover of the amendment let it 
be seen that he was no admirer of the Irish Church either as a political 


N 


196 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


or a religious institution. He objected to tlie Resolutions that they 
were vague and unpractical; said that Mr. Gladstone’s “plan” was 
“ no plan at all” ; and maintained that, if the proposed change con¬ 
ciliated and encouraged Ireland generally, it would affront Ulster, with 
its million and a quarter of Protestants. Lord Stanley did not seem 
to feel how poorly such an argument promises for justice, when it may 
suit your convenience to “discuss the destruction of the Church.” His 
lordship’s speech ended abruptly in the curt statement that your Go¬ 
vernment did not recognize the necessity, the expediency, or the pro¬ 
priety of any immediate and definite utterance upon the subject. He 
therefore invited the House to reject the Resolutions and accept the 
amendment. The tone of this able Minister was throughout so spirit¬ 
less, and his argument so slight, that, as he sat down, a cold shade fell 
visibly upon the Tory benches. One ardent and imaginative opponent 
of the Resolutions, to whom a London paper gives voice, has found an 
argument against them in the assertion that Mr. Gladstone is “a 
Catholic in disguise.” I trust that this perturbed mind may obtain 
re-assurance from Mr. Moncrieff’s speech, which represents “ No 
Popery” opinions as strongly as anything could, and earnestly supports 
the very “Papistical” Leader of the Liberal party. Such lunacy as 
the imputation that the chief of the Liberal party is a Romanist, may 
serve to show what frantic passion will suggest against Truth and 
equity; and Mr. Gladstone, alternately accused of neology and Ro¬ 
manism, is in the meantime merely guilty of wishing his own Church quit 
of a disgrace that belies the very charter of Protestantism. Lord Cran- 
borne’s ridicule of the tactics of his party completed the discomfiture 
of last Monday night. He pointed out that “ modification” meant 
nothing, while by its amendment the Government was really accepting 
disendowment. He read that wonderful letter in which you have 
given the w r orld to know how you tremble for the safety of the 
Reformed Church, if an act of justice should be done in Ireland. 
Lord Cranborne would have preferred to meet Mr. Gladstone with a 
direct negative ; and that course, though impossible to permit, and 
absolutely defiant of Irish opinion and the opinion of the world, would 
at least have been intelligible and honest. In spite of Lord Cran- 
borne’s vigorous and animated speech, the debate flagged. Meanwhile, 
the fact that Mr. Watkin has been forced by his constituents to place 
his amendment at the disposal of Mr. Gladstone so far clears the 
ground. The opening of the campaign has, on the whole, confirmed 
the judgment of Mr. Gladstone and shown the weakness of his oppo¬ 
nents. The principle advanced by the Opposition will be affirmed, 
and your Government will be forced to accept the opinion of the pre¬ 
sent House, that there must be no more trifling with the grievances of 
Ireland. And from that vote, however much may be of necessity and 
propriety left to detailed Acts and future Sessions, will at once com¬ 
mence a new era of content for Ireland, and a future without shame 
and hatred for “the Anglican Communion” throughout the entire 
British Empire. 

What the Tory party really means by “ considerable modifications” 
was exposed last night,—as well as any Tory now living can expose 
it,—by Mr. Gathorne Hardy. The salvos of cheering which greeted 
the right honorable gentleman were such as showed how the minds of 
the squires and county members were comforted when their own “true 
blue” opinions about “justice to Ireland” were expressed as no other 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


197 


Minister could express them. Mr. Hardy’s work is to give utterance, 
on any and all occasions, to the old-fashioned Tory ideas, and, in its 
way, his manner of doing so is perfect. After Lord Stanley’s address 
on Monday night, the Tory party evidently found unspeakable relief 
in the Home Secretary’s vigorous and reckless defiance. The Foreign 
Secretary talks logic, and Tories feel as awkward while his lordship 
is their spokesman as travelers do when a dragoman is interpreting 
for them in an Oriental tongue. Mr. Gathorne Hardy they can follow 
and understand ; and there is no doubt that he gives the right defini¬ 
tion of the “ modifications” which are now to be expected from your 
Government. Ireland will get just as much justice as 3 r our Cabinet 
is forced to give her. Mr. Hardy confessed, amid the plaudits of his 
own side, that he would have preferred to move the “ direct negative” 
to the Resolutions. He wants time to study details ; he wants facts; 
he wants opportunities ; he wants schemes about the surplus fund ; he 
wants everything requisite for action. He will do anything except 
violate the sacred principle that Kilmoyle ought to have a Protestant 
State parson, and that the Roman Catholic titlie-payers ought to supply 
the Protestant parishioners with the “ means of grace.” He would do 
anything to save himself from the awful task of meddling with “ the 
Lord's anointed” in the form of an Irish bishop. He fetched the spirit 
of Sir James Graham from Elysium to tell us, in language which may 
be proper in the other world, that the “ Irish Church is as eternal as 
the Almighty.” He tried to frighten the London guilds and companies 
into an alliance, offensive and defensive, with the hallowed object of 
assault; and he even made himself the apologist of the Peers, demand¬ 
ing that they should bear a hand in the Resolutions and “ modifica¬ 
tions.” In his sincere Tory despair at the prospect of religious equality 
in Ireland, he made the perilous request that, if it be established at 
all, it should be established universally. He got so far off the track 
of logic as to protest that it was really a capital thing for liberty in 
Ireland to suspend the habeas corpus ; and all this slashing rhetoric of 
re-action was intermingled with personal onslaughts of the rashest 
kind. Lord Cranborne was the first object, on account of the damaging 
comments which his lordship had delivered on Mr. Hardy’s consistency 
and on your piety. Then Mr. Gladstone was arraigned on the strength 
of some letters written by a nameless correspondent to an obscure 
journal. The gist of the harangue lay in the statement, with which 
the right honorable rhetorician perorated, that if the Amendment were 
defeated his side would fight the Resolutions, and that if these were 
carried he at least would never take part in the disestablishment and 
disendowment of the Irish Church. Of course Mr. Gathorne Hardy 
speaks only for so much of the Government as sits in his seat. Nei¬ 
ther yourself nor Lord Stanley contributed much to the cheers which 
greeted the excited and “ truly illiberal” oration, which nevertheless 
warmed the Tories immensely. Mr. Goschen replaced the question 
in the regions of argument and Political Science. Sir James Graham 
was doubtless an admirable and pious person, and the “ means of 
grace” are desirable at Kilmoyle; but religion must not be invoked to 
cover tyranny, or palliate national spoliation. Hie question whether 
or not disestablishment will conciliate Ireland, and help to suppress 
Fenianism, is subordinate to the question whether disestablishment is 
just. If it be just, it ought to be effected, even though it increased 
Fenianism, and drove Ireland wild with a passionate desire for more 


198 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


and more Kilmoyles. Mr. Goschen did a service by enunciating this 
plain moral truth of Politics to the astonished Tories ; hut he was 
indeed very badly chosen to answer Mr. Hardy. A speech as able 
and as full of pluck and fire as Mr. Hardy’s has an effect, whether 
it be rational or not; and with such an audience as heard it last night, 
a speaker like Mr. Lowe or Mr. Bright would best have neutralized its 
influence, and ought to have followed. Debates have vastly improved 
in character, and are keenly read by the public ; so that Reformers 
must urge upon those who organize their course not to put up any but 
stalwart and telling fighters at the critical points of the encounter. 
On such a great question as this, the Nation wants to hear men like 
Mr. Forster, Mr. Childers, Mr. Stansfeld, and their like, as well as 
the gentlemen of the old Cabinet or Whig school. The force of ora¬ 
tory in the House must no longer be undervalued; its standard was 
never higher in our history than it is now, when the House contains 
such masters of the English language as Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Bright, 
and Mr. Lowe. It is a power in the House and an immense power in 
the Nation, where the reports of it are read by millions of readers, and 
a declaimer like the present Home Minister should be met on the 
Liberal side by men w T ho can speak as forcibly as himself, and who 
can argue better. After the “ small-talk” of the languid dinner-hours, 
during which one rash Tory orator invoked “ another place” to help 
him towards a “ protracted struggle,” mention must be made of the 
admirable maiden speech of Captain White, which was distinguished 
by good sense, modesty, and cultivated facility. Although an Irish 
Protestant, he declared he would sooner see the Church run any risk 
than base a fictitious prosperity upon oppression and injustice. Fol¬ 
lowing this excellent piece of promise the Tory Irish Attorney-General 
led off a resonant oration with a false quantity, quoting erroneously 
the old line, thus: “ Tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in iUis .” His 
blunder, and the fact of his addressing the House of the Common men 
as “gentlemen,” ensured him at least the tribute of laughter. The 
official speaker seemed to think that it might console Ireland if the 
revenues of the Establishment were re-divided among its clergy,— 
which is as if brigands should seek to soothe the feelings of the plun¬ 
dered by consulting them as to the proper distribution of the spoil. 
The Irish people don’t object to the salaries of the bishops ; they only 
object to the bishops themselves. Mr. Bright’s speech succeeded, and' 
effaced the hapless advocate of the Amendment; predicting that legal 
cobwebs would very soon be swept away and justice be done to Ireland. 
He pointed out that the speech of Mr. Hardy had contravened that of 
Lord Stanley, and he expected that another of the Ministers would, 
by-and-bye, answer Mr. Hardy: the result of “a Government which 
is not a Government.” That is what the British people get by the 
Ministry of a Minority, and by a Tory Cabinet with a “truly liberal” 
policy. What you will do when you are rudely defeated on your first 
exposition of that policy remains to be seen. The defeat is as certain 
as the end of the debate. 

Memorable in many ways, Mr. Bright’s speech last night was 
pre-eminently memorable for its noble attempt to break down the party 
character of the debate on the Irish Church. That the discussion 
should have such a character was inevitable. So long as the day for 
practical and immediate action seemed far oft, politicians were ready 
enough to promise that their votes would not be biased by the wish 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


199 


to keep you in or to keep out Mr. Gladstone. But tlie day of reckon¬ 
ing lias come suddenly. All at once, men on both sides of tlie House 
are alive to the immensity of the subject. Liberals see the iniquity 
of the institution with new vividness. Tories are struck liy the vast¬ 
ness of the interests at stake, and the difficulties of severing the links 
that centuries have rivetted between Church and State. While the 
one party, therefore, call for instant action, the other clamor for open 
defiance or for delay. At such a time it is supremely important to 
strike the key-note of conciliation ; and that is what was done by Mr. 
Bright. He began by burning Hansard. Instead of wasting time 
and exciting angry passions, by raking up the words in which leading 
Statesmen had characterized the Irish Church ten or twenty years ago, 
he distinctly stated that in such a case inconsistency might be a virtue. 
It is no discredit to a public man that, thirty years ago, he thought 
the State bound to maintain the Irish Church Establishment ; but he 
would have a slender title to the character of a Statesman, if, after 
the lessons of thirty years, he still held to his early iaitli, and still 
answered the entreaties of Ireland for relief with a stubborn deter¬ 
mination to stand still. Mr. Bright recognized the fact that the gradual 
development of Mr. Gladstone’s opinions on such questions vas only 
a proof of his educating himself. I do not doubt that the same power 
belongs to men on the Tory side. Well, the Nation will welcome their 
conversion. They will be greeted with no cries of apostacy, and Mi. 
Bright’s speech expresses the spirit in which they will be received by 
the Liberal party. In tone, Mr. Hardy’s address was a striking con¬ 
trast to Mr. Bright’s. Its ability was, of course, undeniable. Indeed, 
Mr Hardy had scarcely received credit for such a power of declamation 
as that which he displayed last night. But the very ability of Ins 
harangue only lays it the more open to criticism, since that ability 
was used to excite party passion to fever-heat. Mr. Hardy appealed 
to party prejudice, and to nothing else. The feelings which have 
inflamed the Orangemen into hatred against their fellow-countrymen 
were the only feelings which he strove to excite. Stubborn Toryism was 
invited to hoist the flag of “No surrender,” and a hint was given to 
the Protestants of Ireland that they could not be blamed for pointing 
their protests with threats. Such an appeal to the lowesd of pai y 
passions had not been heard for years, and the more bigoted lories 
naturally greeted it with rapture. They had begun to doubt whether 
any of their leaders were true to the old creed, as they well might when, 
time after time, both yourself and Lord Stanley spoke m the tones ol 
men who felt that the day of surrender was near, and who were chiefly 
anxious to secure easy terms from the victors. _ But Mr. Hardy de¬ 
fiantly professed the old Sibtliorpian creed, and Ins party cheered him, 
not so much for what he said as for the boldness with which lie spoke. 
Nor, indeed, did his speech contain one sentence which could have 
convinced any person who had not been convinced before. Never 
has a declaimer made such an impression on tlfe House by so small 
an expenditure of .argumentative power. If any of the gentlemen w 10 
cheered Mr. Hardy will take the trouble to shovel away the Minister s 
rhetoric, and to range his doctrines in the form of naked proiiositions, 
they will be ashamed to say that any one of the series is sound or even 
plausible. Mr. Hardy said that he would not abandon the “ principle 
of the connection between Church and State. _ I beg the right honor¬ 
able gentleman’s pardon for flatly contradicting linn; but the truth 


200 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


is that lie recognizes no such “principle.” In the colonies of Britain 
there is no connection between Church and State; in those depen¬ 
dencies Britain has never enforced that “ principle even Mr. Hardy 
himself would resist any attempt to enforce it in Canada ; and how 
that “principle” can be sacred in Ireland, when it is worthless in 
Canada, is one of those questions which the right honorable gentleman 
wisely refrained from discussing. What he means is, that he refuses 
to sacrifice, not a “ principle,” hut a mere conventional arrangement. 
He told the British people next that, if they cut the link between 
Church and State in Ireland, they should have to do the same thing 
in England. Before the Beform Bill of ’32, a borough-monger might 
as justly have argued that, if Parliament disfranchised Old Sarum, it 
must disfranchise Yorkshire. Nay, more, the Gathorne Hardys of 
that day did advance that monstrous proposition. They declared that 
the destruction of the rotten boroughs meant the destruction of the 
“ principle” on which the largest and most immaculate of boroughs 
could claim representation. But in each case the answer is that 
no “ principle” is at stake ; that the Old Sarums were condemned 
simply as Old Sarums ; that the Irish Establishment is to he de¬ 
stroyed simply and solely because it is the Irish Establishment ; and 
that the English Establishment will not he destroyed until, like that 
of Ireland, it shall have become hateful to the bulk of the English 
people, until it shall have become the Church of a mere fraction, and 
until the peace of the Empire shall depend upon its overthrow. If 
Mr. Hardy anticipates such a result, he is the most dangerous among 
all the Church’s enemies. Again, the right honorable gentleman 
maintained that, if the Irish Establishment were disendowed, neither 
private nor corporate property would possess any security of tenure. 
He might as well argue that, because the State permits a railway 
company to make a line through a gentleman’s park, when such a 
course is demanded by the public good, the State will confiscate that 
gentleman’s balance at the banker’s. He might as well argue that, 
because the State applies the funds of a pernicious charity to the 
education of the poor, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make up 
his next deficit by seizing the funds of some useful hospital. In fact, 
Mr. Hardy’s sophisms are so transparent that his speech is the most 
severe indictment which has yet been leveled at the Established 
Church. Since so able a man can say nothing in its favor, Beformers 
may not unreasonably infer that nothing can be said. When the rest 
of the Tory Ministers address the House, they will do wisely to speak 
in the same spirit as Mr. Bright. The honorable gentleman has often 
been accused of inflaming rather than conciliating his opponents. 
But he is no longer open to that charge. He has at last learned to 
recognize that conscientious men may sit on both sides of the House, 
and that a keen sense of public duty may be allied to every variety 
of error. Hence his recent appeals have been marked by a sin¬ 
gular kindliness of tone, and he has lifted the subject of the Irish 
Church above Parliamentary routine. If there ever was a ques¬ 
tion which deserved to be thus elevated, it is that of the Irish Church. 
Statesmen have an opportunity of doing justice to Ireland such as may 
never occur again. If British Statesmen blot out the last marks of 
the old oppression by abolishing a hated supremacy, they shall hasten 
the day when Ireland will be proud to form part of the British Empire. 
If they refuse redress, they shall, as Mr. Bright declared, encourage 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


201 


the idea that Ireland has nothing to hope from the British Parliament; 
that England’s day of trial must he Ireland’s opportunity ; and that her 
wrongs will he repaired only when England shall he plunged into a 
great war. The people of Britain can prevent the growth of that 
deadly feeling by simply determining that the vast mass of the Irish 
people shall no longer pay for the support of a Church which they hate, 
and to which a mere fraction of their number adhere. . Statesmen can 
go far to purchase peace by no longer endowing that minority with the 
character of a dominant class. On the other hand, if we, as a Nation, 
refuse to do justice, we shall virtually say that we prefer the interests 
of a few hundred thousand people to those of a whole country. But 
now that the issue is before the Nation the decision is clear. The 
British people will answer Mr. Bright's appeal, and at the eleventh 
hour will repair a wrong which is a scandal to the British name. 

The sillier portion of the stupid party seem to fancy that the whole 
question is settled for ever by an article in the Act of Union and a 
phrase in the Coronation Oath, and this stuff was read by the Clerk of 
the House of the Common men before the debate began, at the request 
of Colonel Knox and Mr. Surtees. Neither of these documents, however, 
have the force which the stupid party ascribe to them. The Act of 
Union, like any other Act, is subject to the decisions of existing 01 
future Parliaments, and the Coronation Oath does not in any way 
preclude her Majesty as the Servant of the State from assenting to a 
Bill embodying the principles of Mr. Gladstone s Resolutions. Her 
Majesty’s grandfather, George III, of obstinate memory, delighted to 
take refuge behind his Coronation Oath whenever the rights of Roman 
Catholics were in discussion ; but if a thousand Sovereigns had really 
sworn to maintain a gross injustice, the people forming the Nation 
would act upon a higher principle of morality, and find some adequa e 
means of sweeping it away. You have placed your Tory friends m an 
humbled position, and while the more silly of them may say what they 
think, the more clever have to argue in manifest opposition to then- 
own convictions. They act a part, and they do not act it well, lhe 
high-minded men of the party feel the disgrace of being under the 
leadership of an unscrupulous political adventurer who uses them to 
serve his own ambition, and, when your personal success lequnes 1 , 
tricks them into concessions they have devoted all their lives to oppose. 
No doubt it serves the Tories right to be thus fooled and bamboozled by 
you. They retain your services just as they would purchase any other 
article in the market which they thought would suit them. With¬ 
out you, they would have long since perished as a party, though out 
of their fragments fresh parties would have been made. I icy oo 
you as a man of talent, with very low views of public honor, iou 
were not of their order, born and bred in their peculiar prejudices, and 
could not possibly be a real believer in their creed.. But you answered 
their purpose for a time. You could abuse their enemies to their 
entire satisfaction. So long as your taunts were pointed with suffi¬ 
cient malignity, they cared no more than you did for veracity. Gra¬ 
dually, and with great labor, you built them up into a power, you 
placed them in office, and, finally, you became Premier building the 
tower of your own ambition upon the rum of their policy and the 
defeat of their plans. The story is a pretty one, and if the Tories 
wince under it, other people may laugh. Your party will have to 
undergo more “education” if they remain under your political manage- 


202 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


ment. But what will become of them if they shake you off ? A policy 
of pure resistance to the demands of the age will soon meet with 
deserved defeat. It is only through conceding much that the Tories 
can hope to exercise any real influence over the future conduct of the 
Nation. As soon as a few specially required Beforms have been 
gained, the natural Conservatism of a contented people will assert itself 
as a great power, hut it will not he the particular Conservatism on 
which Toryism or Whiggery is built. The reign of great artificial 
families is virtually over. Territorialism and the hereditary principle 
are passing away, and the Tory of the future will he something different 
from the stolid dupe of a Hebrew adventurer or the retainer of a lordly 
house. For some years to come, we may look for more political earn¬ 
estness than we have seen for a long time. It is because Mr. Gladstone 
has shown this quality so strikingly in a House of the Common 
men possessing very little of it, that there has been so much caballing 
against him, and it is because the members of that House perceive the 
growth of an earnest spirit among the people that they are now more 
willing than they were last Session to give up their own frivolity and 
trickery, and to do something to improve their character before the 
elections come. 

The probabilities of the future are now calculated, not so much on the 
administrative capability of a Statesman as on the inherent endow¬ 
ments and deficiencies of the people over whom he is called to rule. 
Faith in the omnipotence of ancient institutions seems to he on the 
wane, and the once confident expectation that a Constitutional Go¬ 
vernment would suffice to render any people permanently free, has 
undergone too many disappointments to readily revive in its ancient 
force. The prophetic spirit of an impending change is sweeping over 
Britain like the gaunt shadow of some huge tliunder-cloud. In an age 
of political dilapidation, when the great social structures of an outworn 
past are crumbling into decay, a process like that which attends organic 
dissolution in the physical sphere begins to manifest itself. The social 
elements liberated from the individual system with which they were 
before especially connected, enter into new combinations and become 
integral parts of other social arrangements with which they have a 
nearer relationship. Thus at present the more active minds through¬ 
out the British Nation are gradually arranging themselves into great 
parties, bound together by the tie of common principles, similar ends, 
and interchangeable sympathies. Their views are no longer merely 
local, and their desires and efforts are humanitarian rather than strictly 
national. They are Democrats or Conservatives, Republicans or 
Monarchists, rather than merely English, Scottish, or Irish. The 
territorial peculiarities and characteristics so all important a few gene¬ 
rations since, are being rapidly subordinated to other considerations, 
which have a reference rather to social conditions and political consti¬ 
tutions. Men are being arranged by the laws of thought, by the com¬ 
mon sentiments which they advocate, rather than by the geographical 
incident of birth in the same locality. This moribund condition of old 
forms and the re-absorption of their elements into new bodies is every¬ 
where so evident, that even the most obtuse seem to be at least dimly 
conscious of some momentous and impending change. Willful blind¬ 
ness alone, indeed, can close its eyes to facts so patent, and thus avoid 
the rather startling conclusion that we are on the verge of a new era,— 
that the long established is fast decaying, and the new is already pre- 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


208 


paring for emergence. The wintry wind of those howling tempests of 
Sectarian war, whose desolating blasts have been sweeping ever and 
anon over every department of the Nation for generations, is simply 
clearing the forest of its withered foliage, that the buds and blossoms 
of another Spring may in due time make their welcome appearance. 
The tendency of things is not so much to destruction as to substitu¬ 
tion. The populations of England, Scotland, and Ireland are casting 
off their old habits and badges of unity which were local, and adoj)ting 
others which are so far general as to be independent of place. And of 
what is this premonitory if not of an approaching unity ? We are 
being trained both to think and act in concert over spaces never before 
spanned. England, Scotland, and Ireland, already one in so much 
that appertains to thought and knowledge, in science, art, and, to some 
extent, in literature, is now rapidly becoming one in feeling, one in 
political interaction, and will soon have but two parties,—the men of 
the past and the men of the future, the friends of Toryism and the 
advocates of progress. In speculating on the probabilities of the future, 
one very prevalent source of error is our inability to grasp the present 
in its totality. We circumscribe our field of view, and in the micro¬ 
scopic notice of a part, become incapable of rightly apprehending the 
whole. In the speciality of our attention to one class of forces, we 
become oblivious, probably, of others equally important, although not 
quite so superficially obvious. Thus in the general dissolution and 
disintegration of old political arrangements, we are so occupied with 
the phenomena attendant upon dilapidation as to altogether overlook 
the counterpoising process of re-construction. Thus all the processes 
and results of segregation being in immediate proximity to us, we are 
naturally prone to dwell upon them with especial force, and conclude 
that they constitute the characteristic features of our epoch ; while the 
political cry of Liberty is very naturally associated in our minds with 
national independence , equal rights, and the disappearance of those vast 
Governmental Structures, known as “ Religious State Install is hments, 
whose rise, growth, and continued existence have ever proved so 
destructive to other Sects and parties in their neighborhood. _ History, 
says the triumphant Liberal, as he glances proudly around him on the 
present, and prophetically forward into the future, and contrasts them 
with the past,—history is but an old almanac. Very true, I say, but 
from these old almanacs, which give the places of the Planets and 
other heavenly bodies in former periods, the good Astronomer obtains 
data which niay assist him in calculating their movements. for the 
times to come. The past is but a part of which the 1 inure will be le 
quired to make a whole. We are as yet but in the midway course of 
destiny, and shall act most unwisely if we neglect the intimations of 
her plan afforded by the collective experience of mankind. 

I am, dear Sir, still your unpaid preceptor in Political Science, and 
still searching for that knowledge of Truth and Justice that lives on 
freedom, and for establishing the freedom of investigation that conducts 
to the knowledge of Truth and Justice, to the progress, peace, and 
concord of the people forming the Nation, 

John ocott* 


204 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


LETTER XI. 


Belfast, 59, Victoria Terrace, 
April 2nd, 1868. 

John S. Mill, Esq., M.P. 

Dear Sir, —“ This is more than we can hear,” was the exclamation 
of all the really sound Tories, when they woke up yesterday morning, 
to read in the papers that, over night, the Lords, after a short debate, 
had abolished their privilege of proxies ! What other old and venerable 
institution is to disappear suddenly, like Aladdin’s palace, by the aid 
of African,—or was it Asiatic ?—mystery and magic ? Is anything 
quite secure ? The other evening “ the parochial constitution of the 
Church of England,”—I do not know what it means, but it is, I 
believe, something very divine,—was abolished in five minutes, between 
twelve and one; a time when the great majority of honest people were 
all in bed, hut when one exception alone, Mr. Newdegate, was awake 
to denounce the crime. Mr. Otway in a single evening abolished that 
“ necessary,” if not “harmless,” cat which has done such wonders by 
pricking on our own flesh and blood to win all our battles, from Blen¬ 
heim to Waterloo ; in a few minutes more, he struck down that grace¬ 
ful old Supposition, the “ balance of power;” and when Lord Elcho 
proposed to restore it to the Mutiny Act, the House laughed! Will 
Mr. John Bright be pleased to state, for the information of the 
trembling Tories, what he does consider too sacred for his attacks ? 
Has he not sapped the foundations of almost everything which they 
hold dear,—the Throne, and the Altar ? Might he not, if he were 
only honest, paint upon a little board over his seat, “ Corn Laws, 
British Constitutions, Church Rates, and Alien Churches carefully 
removed in Town and Country. Political parties attended.” On 
Tuesday night he was kind enough to admit, that in the hereditary 
monarchy there may he a “ convenience;” and the Tories are thankful 
for even that small mercy. For, if they are to lose their loved insti¬ 
tutions, they hope to do so not oftener than at the rate of one a night. 
The poet says, “ Never morn to evening wore but some sad heart did 
break ;” and, at the present rate of clearing away, no morning comes 
that the Tories do not miss something or other swept away in the night. 
Still they only hope that the pace, already fast, may not be accelerated: 
these rapid acts of statesmanship make them rather dizzy. When 
they have dried their eyes as regards the abolished proxies, they may 
he strong enough to hear some other loss,—some sliping away into 
the great relentless stream of time, of the old piers and bulwarks to 
which the ship of State was once firmly attached ; I present through 
you the metaphor to Lord Malmesbury free of charge. I do not say 
that “ Chaos is come again.” I do not like, indeed, to say anything 
positive ; for somebody might some day make yourself and your pre¬ 
sent humble correspondent Tory Ministers,—men once more proud 
have fallen as low,—and then we should have to retract everything 
we had ever said. But if chaos has not arrived, we have come hack 
politically to a condition analogous to that geological period when most 
things were in a half fluid, half solid state. In this general flux,— 
when only odd amphibious creatures, pachydermatous and web-footed, 
feel in their element, and when any islands whereon the feet may 
rest are “ desperate seldom,”—we are hardly surprised at anything 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


205 


in tlie way of hazy politics and unsettlement. Tory principles are 
very fine, no doubt, in a book, if aided by the feeling for the sentimental 
and the picturesque; but when we see the principles tossed about con¬ 
tradictorily on the Treasury Bench, wriggling from one end to the 
other, our feelings are changed. As to the practice ol proxies in the 
Lords, of double-refined gentle blood, Lord Malmesbury first proved 
that it was very ancient, very reasonable, and very convenient, and then 
suggested that it should be given up. Twas ever thus from childhood s 
hour,—the moment a Tory member praises anything in theory he is 
about to surrender it in fact. A sincere Tory must shudder to lieai one 
of his leaders utter a eulogy; and I should not be surprised to lieai 
of petitions to Mr. Disraeli and his colleagues to say nothing m piaise 
of fox-hunting, British wives, rotation of crops, pale ale, 01 loast bee , 
because these are things which the people are not yet prepared to grv e 
up, though no one knows what the Tories may come to in the course 
of their “ education.” As to the proxies, they are gone , and thus re¬ 
formers, who have ever exposed the mischievous effects of the prac¬ 
tice, are now quite safe in saying that the habit was not altogetliei 
so black as it has been sometimes painted. It was said to be absurd 
that some Peer down in the country or abroad was thus enabled to 
vote on questions when he had not heard the debate. Cicero wonc eied 
how two augurs could meet without laughing at the farce they kep up, 
and it is astonishing that any public man of the present day could use 
the debate-hearing argument without a smile. Are votes m the House 
of the Common men always decided by debate ? Are. the legislators 
who listened to the speeches on Monday and Tuesday night ica y wiser 
as to what was said than the readers of the morning papers ? Why, 
everybody knows that there are not ten men m the Commons who do 
listen to the whole debate ; and few will assert that there are five whose 
votes are affected by the arguments used. Hie fact is, that most 
questions now-a-days are prepared out of doors ; public meetings an 
the press educate our legislators, who simply put into shape the public 
opinion of the day. Any man who, never entering either House, care¬ 
fully reads the debates, is much more competent to judge both sides 
of the question than the average member who spends half his time m 
the tea-room, lobby, or smoking-room, and only rushes m when there 
is the prospect of a spicy or a splendid speech. Suppose the House of 

Lords does force the young Duke of Bakeackes ^ kldei- 

house to sit sulkily on its crimson benches, and to follow Ins leadei 

into the right lobbyWhat will it have gamed ? It may have kept 
the poor imbecile organism out of harm s way ; it may have depnved 
himtbr some hours of the dear society of betting men, stable-boys, 
and "rooms : but consider the cruelty in forcing him to hear for hours 
political speeches that no explanation could bring down'tol ; 
It mav gratify some people to see his ancestral name m a division , 
llllt “ fL t savs “We ne’er should mix our pleasure or our pnde 

thing that feels and it is hard that young 
ucrsons of title who do not care for politics, should be diagged from 
their youthful, ’if not innocent, amusements, to swell the Present pomp 
of some party chief. It may be a man’s misfortune, not his fault, that 
hek“he P “ tenth transmitter of a foolish face but why should lie be 
r -| i. ,-..,4. foolish face “ in evidence, as the French say, and to 
r; l i afm es y about tte lobbies of the Upper House ? There are 
indeed, many causes or grounds for fulfilling eyen those conditions, 


206 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


and others still more stern. In the first place, it is just possible 
that if the delinquents duly took their places, their mere appear¬ 
ance might dissipate the calumnious supposition that the foolish 
face commands so large a per-centage in the order; for not only 
are the well-born apt to be somewhat above the average, even 
in visible presence, but, with a little more study and practice in 
the work of the State, the face itself might grow somewhat wiser. 
Above all, the claimants of a hereditary share in legislation have to 
prove that they at least can estimate the value and meaning of the 
privilege. If they account it worth their while to retain their hold on 
the power, the people will want to see that they think it sufficiently 
worth their while to pay suit and service for the rank in the form of 
attendance. If they demand the right of pronouncing judgment on 
public affairs, let them at least be present when public affairs are dis¬ 
cussed and transacted. The Nation will not forget the Lords, if the 
Lords do not forget themselves. While adopting this genuine im¬ 
provement, the Peers hesitated about another which is demanded 
exactly in the same spirit of Reform: they declined to compel the at¬ 
tendance of Peers on private committees. Everybody knows that, as 
regards private business, the House of the Lords is absolutely in the 
hands of Lord Redesdale, Lord Shaftesbury, and a few others, who 
do all the work, and have all the responsibility and power. They are 
honorable and useful men, though, as the old lady said of a high 
authority, “ they have their crotchets but it is a mockery to “ thank 
God we have a House of Lords,” as some people say, and then to find 
that we are thankful for a very small matter,—the continued existence 
of two or three respectable veterans. There are Peers who never 
attend a single committee, and never do a single act of public work:— 
Why not fine them, or force them to delegate their duties to their sons, 
or suspend their privileges as Peers ? Mr. Gladstone, the other day, 
suggested, by way of reductio ad absurdum , that it would be rather 
weak if a Tory Minister, opposing a vote for the extinction of the 
Peers, proposed an amendment not absolutely rejecting the idea, but 
admitting that “ modifications” were required. We move rather fast 
now-a-days, and Mr. Gladstone may live to see proposed the very 
resolution he suggested as too weak and feeble even for Tory states¬ 
men. The time is come when old institutions must show an adequate 
cause for their exercise of power; must wield that power for the public 
good; and must make privilege popular by proving that it has its use. 
Two or three gentlemen of family and fortune, calling themselves one 
of the estates of the realm, and passing new laws in a well-bred whis¬ 
per, is an old farce that has hack a long run. But, after a time, the 
public are sure to demand new actors and a new play. 

The Great Debate on the Irish Church commenced on last Monday 
night. Mr. Gladstone submitted Resolutions to the effect that the 
Protestant Church in Ireland should be disestablished and disendowed ; 
that the voluntary system should be adopted with regard to all 
religious sects in that part of the United Queendom ; and that the 
property of the Church should be appropriated to exclusively Irish 
uses. These Resolutions were met by Lord Stanley, on the part of 
Government, with an amendment, that although the Church tempora¬ 
lities admitted of considerable modifications, any proposition tending 
to disestablishment or disendowment should be reserved for the deci¬ 
sion of a new Parliament. Mr. Gladstone argued that the object of 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


207 


Mr. Pitt in carrying the Union was to destroy ascendency and secure 
equality, results which had not been accomplished, and which now 
ought to he obtained. The Established Church, he contended, had 
not answered what he alleged was its original object, the Protestan¬ 
tizing of the people. Ireland remains in a state of discontent and 
disorder, the cause of which he attributed to the existence of an 
Established Protestant Church among a people the great majority of 
whom are of another faith. The grievance is indisputable. There 
can be no doubt that the Irish population regard with great discontent 
the Establishment which Mr. Gladstone proposes to get rid of, and o± 
which Lord Stanley studiously refrained from offering any defence. 
The Solicitor-General pointed out “ that without an Act following the 
Resolution proposed by Mr. Gladstone, the Resolution itself would be 
unconstitutional, the Queen being bound by the Coronation Oath to 
maintain the Church, and make appointments thereto. The Sovereign 
cannot constitutionally refrain from performing the duty imposed by 
that oath, in consequence merely of an address from the House oi tlie 
Common men. The only way her Majesty could act upon such an 
address was by giving her consent to an Act of Parliament. Ihe 

Solicitor-General said that, speaking as a lawyer, he did not pretend 

that the Queen might not agree to a Disestablishing Bill ; but he did 
most distinctly aver that the Queen ought not to be asked to do aug it 
in derogation of the contract with Parliament and her people contained 
in that "oath on a mere address of one House. The only way that she 
should be required, if at all, to act, should be by asking her Majesty s 
consent to a Bill,” The Ministerial amendment simply went to throw 
over the consideration of the question to the next Parliament on the 
around of the impossibility of any action being taken at present. 
Mr Gladstone’s Resolutions go no further than pledging the House to 
a principle, which the new House may adopt or reject as it pleases ; 
hnt there would be a great moral influence originated by their adoption. 
Thev have the merit also of clearness, of which the Ministerial amend¬ 
ment is deficient. No one can understand what the latter really means. 
Mr. Gladstone declares the Protestant Church in Ireland to be an evil 
which it is necessary for the repose of Ireland should be abolishec , 
but Lord Stanley, instead of controverting the proposition simp y 
asked that its consideration might be deferred. The Prime Minister 
had only a few days before declared that he would consent to no 
surrender • and the difference of opinion in the Cabinet on the subject 
became still more evident when Mr. Hardy addressed the House, the 
burthen of whose eloquent speech was the same. Mr. Bright was, as 
usual happy in pointing out the discordance of the Ministerial speeches. 
The LeST S rurromided by difficulties, no doubt; but Parhamen 
is competent to deal with them all. The same power that made the 
Act of knion, which has been emphatically alluded to m the debate, 
can alter it. By the fifth article of that Act it was enacted that the 
Churches of England and Ireland should he united into one Protestant 
Episcopal Church, to be called “ The United Church of England and 
Ireland •” and that “ the doctrine, worship,discipline, and government 
of the said United Church shall be and shall remain in full force for 
.X same are now by law established for the Church of England; 
and that the continuance and preservation of the said United Church, 
as the Established Church of England and Ireland shall be deemed 
and taken to be an essential and fundamental part of the Union , and 


208 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


that in like manner the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government 
of the Church of Scotland, shall remain and he preserved as the same 
are now established by law, and by the Act for the union of the two 
kingdoms of England and Scotland.” So that those members were 
strictly correct who said that the disestablishment proposed by Mr. 
Gladstone would be a repeal of one of the chief articles of the Act 
of Union ; but if it be found expedient and just to repeal that article, 
Parliament undoubtedly is able to do so. It is believed that satis¬ 
faction would be afforded to a great extent by the establishment of 
religious equality, and that a further demand for the repeal of the 
legislative union would not be made. At a large and influential 
meeting of Roman Catholics in Limerick, a few days ago, the Earl of 
Dunraven, who occupied the chair, spoke with pleasure of the remark¬ 
able change which he observed in the progress of public opinion on 
this great question in England, and not only on this but on all 
questions relating to Ireland. “ There never was a time (he said) 
since the connexion between the two countries, in which there was such 
a strong desire on the part of England to come forward and atone for 
the errors of the past, and to deal with all those evils of which the 
people of Ireland most justly complained.” This acknowledgment 
seems to imply a just and generous disposition to arrange matters on 
a firm and satisfactory basis ; and if so desirable a result is to be 
accomplished by the disendowment of the Church in Ireland, it would 
not be too dearly purchased. The maintenance of the Protestant 
Church in this country has probably never been intended as an insult 
to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, but it is nevertheless regarded in 
that light; and the conviction has taken such deep root, that all the 
denials that can be made and all the professions and friendly offices 
that can be offered, will not suffice for its eradication. It becomes a 
question, therefore, whether it is worth while to allow" the discontent 
arising from a sense of offence and humiliation to remain rankling in 
the brains of Irishmen for the sake of an endowment for the Church 
of the minority. Mr. Disraeli is of opinion that disestablishment in 
Ireland would lead to a similar operation upon the Church in England, 
and that as “ the union between Church and State has hitherto been the 
chief means of our civilization, and is the only security for our religious 
liberty,” its destruction w T ould be unwise and dangerous. This opinion 
is apparently based upon the objections of the Nonconformist bodies 
to a State Church and the known hostility of the Ritualists also, to 
whom the supremacy of the State is obnoxious, as it interferes with 
and effectually checks their own ambition. A Nonconformist paper 
observes that “ a hundred years ago all the leading Nonconformists in 
England agreed with Churchmen on the fundamental principle that 
the State was bound to establish and maintain the public worship of 
Almighty God ;” but a different opinion is now extending. It, is con¬ 
sidered that “ a State cannot be Christian,” and that to adopt Epis¬ 
copacy and a Liturgy, and to declare these to be the religion of the 
State, is unjust and a positive injury to those who do not receive 
Episcopacy or use a Liturgy. Upon the same authority we are told 
that “ this view of the matter has gradually taken hold of the Dis¬ 
senting churches,” and that “ the millions of English, Welsh, and 
Scottish Dissenters are united in the belief that Church establishments 
are essentially unjust.” If that be the case, there would seem to be 
some foundation for a belief that the disendowunent of the Church in 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


209 


Ireland would be brought forward afterwards as an argument and pre¬ 
cedent for the disendowment of the Church in England. Whether or 
not the spirit of Protestantism would be injured is another matter. 
In consideration of a great national question it is as well to take all 
possibilities into account. “ So soon as the disestablishment of the 
Irish Church has been voted by Parliament,’’ says the Nonconformist 
paper, “ the English bishops and rectors may begin to calculate 
whether they have five, or ten, or fifteen years to reckon upon ; 
but assuredly, Queen Victoria’s successor will never be, what English 
Kings have been for three hundred years—the * Head of the Church 
of England.’ ” 

It is desirable that the Irish people should receive a direct 
and tangible proof that there is a real desire to treat them 
with justice. It is believed that the disendowment of the Church 
would be accepted as such a proof, and that little would remain 
afterwards to establish harmony, satisfaction, and contentment. 
It is of no use saying that the Protestant Church has ceased to be 
burtliensome to Homan Catholic tenants, for notwithstanding that 
pecuniary exactions have ceased, neither tithe nor church-rate being 
claimed from the tenant, the landlord (generally a Protestant) being 
the only party chargeable, for the fact remains of an alien establishment 
and the impression it has made is vivid and acute of indignity and 
humiliation. There are many who would not object to the redress of 
this grievance if any guarantee or assurance could be given that satis¬ 
faction would be afforded, and the claims end here ; but they have an 
apprehension that the Act of Settlement would be hereafter objected to, 
and they might be required to defend the Protestant succession to the 
Crown. We should not, however, be hindered from the performance 
of an act which, in our conscience, we believe to be right and just, by 
vague apprehensions of possible danger at some distant period. Ilieie 
will never be wanting Protestant champions and defenders, we trust, 
and their cause will be all the stronger when it is freed from anything 
like injustice. It has been urged that the present Pailiament is in¬ 
competent to deal with the large question raised by Mr. Gladstone 9 
Resolutions ; but the present Parliament is not required to deal with 
it ; Mr. Gladstone submitted only an abstract proposition, about 
which anybody is competent to form an opinion, and which the expiiing 
Parliament is free to deal with, as far as time will allow. The present 
Parliament could not proceed to the work of disestablishment, and the 
only doubt as to the propriety of Mr. Gladstone’s Resolutions being 
brought forward at the present time, arises from the possibility of a 
fierce discussion out of doors before the question can really be bi ought 
to an issue. All that can be known as the result of the debate as yet 
is the number of members of the present House of the Common men 
who are favorable to disendowment, and the number who desire to up¬ 
hold the Church. It will be for the new and Reformed 1 arliament to 
settle the question ; and until that Parliament is elected, the two 
parties represented, the one by Mr. Gladstone and the other by Mr. 
Disraeli, will exert themselves in support of their respective opinions. 
The real struggle will be upon the hustings. The conflict as yet is a 
mere skirmish, preparatory to a coming battle. Mr Surtees, on last 
Monday, moved that the Coronation Oath should be read, and the 
demand was supported by the cheers of the House. A very strange 
misconception exists as to the oath, which is taken to mean that the 


210 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


Church of England must never he altered or interfered with by the 
Sovereign, and, it is assumed, by Parliament, because the Sovereign 
has so sworn. It is true that the Queen did promise upon oath, at her 
Coronation, that she would “ govern according to the laws of God and 
the true profession of the Gospel as taught by the Protestant reformed 
religion, and maintain all its rights and privileges.” The Coronation 
Oath was originated by an Act of William and Mary, and the time 
suggests the considerations under which it was passed. James II 
had, in the exercise of his prerogative, claimed a dispensing power, and 
it was believed that he proposed to carry his prerogative as far as the 
enforced restoration of the monastic estates which Henry VIII had 
bestowed upon his creatures in the work of the spoliation of the Abbeys, 
and whose descendants still enjoyed the estates in the time of Jame§. 
Thereupon the Whig aristocracy became great friends of civil and 
religious liberty, and joined the people in inviting William of Orange to 
come over and deliver them from prerogative and the dispensing power. 
In order to prevent William or any other monarch ever threatening 
such an extreme measure again, the prerogative was limited by the 
Coronation Oath and reduced to the action of one separate Estate 
of the Realm, incapable of being so exerted as to absorb the other 
Three Estates. If it could be conceived that Parliament would have 
parted with its limitation over the Monarchy, the preceding words of 
the oath show that there was no such intention. “ Will you govern 
the people of this realm according to the statutes, laws, and customs of 
the same?” What are statutes but the expression of the will of the 
Three Estates in co-ordinate action, and what are laws but statutes 
reduced into practice by the judges ? It was in fact only intended to 
limit the Sovereign by oath from interference under the exercise of 
prerogative with the Church, as James had intended to do, and the fact 
is placed beyond doubt, because Parliament has already passed Acts by 
which the Test and Corporation Acts, the Catholic Disabilities, and 
many other grievances have been repealed. Nay, more, both in England 
and Ireland, the Crown and the Parliament have combined to deal 
with Church Property, for in both countries w 7 e have commuted tithes, 
and organized Ecclesiastical Commissions. If the Coronation Oath is 
to be taken as a real security for the temporalities—What might happen 
when there is no oath in existence, say, between the demise of one 
Monarch and the Coronation of another ? So absurd is the argument 
founded on the oath. 

The two nights of the debate on the disestablishment of the Irish 
Church have certainly not strengthened that institution, so dear to Irish 
Tory landlords. The discussion has, however, undoubtedly weakened 
the Ministry. Mr. Gladstone’s Resolutions were precise. They laid 
down a principle of disestablishment: under some reservation they even 
indicated a policy of disendowment. When the Resolutions were first 
announced in the House of the Common men, the Prime Minister 
seemed himself surprised at their boldness, and lie showed some sense 
of the gravity of the “ crisis” which he was ready enough to assure us 
had come. He set himself to appeal to Protestant fanaticism in Eng¬ 
land. He assured the Churchmen that this crisis was more English 
than Irish, and that it was the connexion between Church and State 
which was at stake. Lord Stanley’s amendment, however, said 
nothing about the union of Church and State. It was timid, hesitat¬ 
ing, reluctant to assert any principle, only useful as committing Mr. 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


211 


Disraeli and his colleagues to nothing absolutely, and leaving as an 
open question the policy of dealing with the Irish Established Church, 
or of defending it on the principle of No Surrender. The Prime Minister 
does not seem particularly anxious what course may ultimately he 
adopted. The amendment showed that he was desirous of gaining time ; 
but for what purpose it was impossible to say. His earnest followers 
of the type of Colonel Stuart Knox, who, as he says himself, desperately 
cling, like drowning sailors—such is the triumph of great Tory prin¬ 
ciples—to this last feeble plank of Lord Stanley’s amendment, would 
have preferred a more resolute mode of resistance. They waited, how¬ 
ever, until Lord Stanley’s speech to see if they could find in it some 
comfort which the amendment itself did not afford. The Foreign Secre¬ 
tary’s reply to Mr. Gladstone on Monday was only, however, a dilution 
of an amendment which seemed already sufficiently diluted. It was 
the amendment spread over two columns of the Times. The Besolutions, 
said Lord Stanley, point to the disestablishment of the Irish Church, 
but they do not tell us what an Established Church is. They do 
not declare, continued the Foreign Secretary, what is intended to be 
done with the endowments: while laying down a principle, they avoid 
the real difficulty. It seemed, then, from the words of the Foreign 
Secretary, who was put up by Mr. Disraeli to indicate the Ministerial 
intentions, that, if only some way could be found of disposing of the 
endowments in an equitable and satisfactory manner, the objections of 
the Government to disestablishment would cease at the meeting of the 
next Parliament. Lord Stanley’s criticism on Mr. Gladstone’s Beso¬ 
lutions, however unsatisfactory to the Ulster Tory Members, and the 
vehement English partisans of Church and State, were no answer to 
Mr. Gladstone’s speech. That address went much further than the 
Besolutions. Disestablishment and disendowment, in Mr. Gladstone’s 
mind, come to pretty much the same thing. The work would begin 
when the address to the Crown was presented to her Majesty, and her 
reply had been received. The diligence of the Ecclesiastical Commis¬ 
sioners in originating new benefices, of the value of some three or four 
hundred a-year, where there are but four Protestants to some three or 
four thousand Catholics, would be restrained. They would no longer, 
with a perverse industry, be able to build and endow new Episcopalian 
Protestant Churches where there are no Episcopalian Protestant con¬ 
gregations, with the object of proving that the churches and the bene¬ 
fices of the Establishment are increasing, whatever may be the number 
of the worshipers. Mr. Gladstone evinced an anxiety not merely to 
respect all vested rights which now exist, but even those which may be 
in expectancy. So far from proposing anything like confiscation his 
plan is almost too indulgent to all who may believe they have some 
actual or possible claim on the possessions of the Church. Disestablish¬ 
ment is deprived of its terrors by preserving to the present holders all 
benefices, all advowsons to the patrons, all the buildings of the Church 
and the residences of the clergy, and all funds that have been bequeathed 
by private persons to the Irish Establishment; and by endeavoring to 
estimate some imaginary claim to compensation for those “ who have 
separated themselves from the great bulk of profitable secular employ¬ 
ments, in expectation of the benefices which we have kept m existence 
by law, under our authority, even though they may not actually have 
entered upon them.” In endeavoring to be generous to the Irish Epis¬ 
copalian clergy, Mr. Gladstone almost ceases to be just to the State, 


212 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


and to the millions for whose welfare the State Church has been sup¬ 
posed to exist. Some tliree-fifths or two-thirds of the possessions of 
the Church will, according to Mr. Gladstone’s proposals, remain in 
the hands of the clergy of the Establishment. The other denominations 
which have received State aid are also to have their existing emoluments 
respected. They will not, however, receive their money from the Con¬ 
solidated Fund. It is evident that Mr. Gladstone designs the one- 
third or two-fifths which may remain of the possessions of the present 
Irish Establishment, after all vested interests have been satisfied, for a 
settlement of the claims of the other denominations which are in the 
receipt of State funds. Lord Stanley was not prepared for the develop¬ 
ment of Mr. Gladstone’s Resolutions. Hence the very unsatisfactory 
character of his speech in support of the amendment. It was more 
evident after Lord Stanley sat down than it had been before that the 
Ministers were without a policy. Lord Stanley virtually said nothing, 
because, in fact, he had nothing to say. The disappointment through¬ 
out the Ministerial ranks was general; and with that disappointment 
there was not a little dismay. The Irish Tory Members and their 
friends on the Ministerial benches were suspicious of being “ educated” 
again in their own despite ; and they stoutly resolved not to be educated. 
Lord Cranborne exposed, with great force, the w r ant of principle of 
resistance in Lord Stanley’s amendment and in Lord Stanley’s 
speech. On Tuesday there was almost open mutiny in the Ministerial 
ranks; and the Cabinet was clearly divided against itself. The result 
was that on Tuesday evening Mr. Hardy adopted quite a different tone 
from that of Lord Stanley on the preceding evening. The Home 
Secretary began to defend the Irish Establishment on principle. Mr. 
Bright had good ground for declaring that the Ministers changed their 
language every night; and that it was impossible to judge from what 
one of them said to-day what another would say to-morrow. Two of 
the most important of Mr. Disraeli’s colleagues have spoken on this 
great question; but it is still a mystery what line Mr. Disraeli may 
take at the close of the debate. He may agree with Lord Stanley, or 
with Mr. Gathorne Hardy. He may dissent from both ; and come 
between his ninepins, rolling down one in one direction another in 
another. The Ministry can, however, avow no intelligible policy on 
the Irish Church. The most earnest members of the Cabinet would 
prefer defending that institution to the last according to their earnest 
convictions. But Mr. Disraeli sees plainly, by this time, that even a 
majority of the present House of the Common men is not prepared to 
maintain the Irish Establishment on any high Tory principles. The 
Prime Minister is much less a believer in the State Church than Mr. 
Gladstone himself; but to defend it in Ireland is the bond by which 
Mr. Disraeli claims the allegiance of the Tories. The schoolmaster 
finds himself at the mercy of his pupils. They are inclined, at the 
least indication of surrendering the Irish Church Establishment, to 
shut the door against him, and, in a very determined mood, indeed, 
“ to bar him out.” 

Very little that can bear a moment's examination has been said in 
favor of the Irish Establishment during the debate as yet. At a loss 
for any arguments in defence of an institution which has never fulfilled 
the objects a Church should carry out, the greatest theme for Ministerial 
rhetoric and sarcasm has been the alleged inconsistency of Mr. Glad¬ 
stone in coming forward personally to advocate the disestablishment of 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


213 


the Irish Church. For weeks, indeed, this has been the topic of the 
Tory journals : it was not disdained even by Lord Stanley on Monday 
evening; and last night, when Mr. Gatjiorne Hardy rose to abandon 
the hesitating policy of which Lord Stanley had on the previous even¬ 
ing been the exponent, and which had been the cause of so much dis¬ 
satisfaction on the Ministerial Benches, the Home Secretary quoted a 
letter addressed to “ a dignitary and consistent supporter of the right 
hon. gentleman,” in order to establish Mr. Gladstone’s inconsistency. 
In this letter, Mr. Gladstone is stated to have written—“ The question 
of the Irish Establishment is remote, and apparently out of all bearing 
upon the practical politics of the day.” The reading, or rather the re¬ 
peating of this sentence, on Tuesday evening, was received with loud 
Ministerial cheers. They were again and again renewed as the Mi¬ 
nister proceeded with the following quotation :—“ I think I have 
marked strongly my sense of the responsibility of the opening of such 
a question. One thing I may add, because I think it a clear landmark. 
In any measure dealing with the Irish Church, I think, though I 
scarcely ever expect to share in such a measure, the Act of Union must 
be recognized, and must have important consequences, especially with 
reference to the position of the hierarchy.” Mr. Gladstone is evidently 
not one of the readers of the Morning Herald. Though the letter, on 
anonymous authority, had appeared in that newspaper, he heard of it 
for the first time when his attention was called to it by the Home Se¬ 
cretary. He asked for the reference. The extract was handed to him 
across' the table. He read it carefully through, and Mr. Hardy 
pointedly requested him to rise in his place, and to say whether he did 
or did not write the letter. As Mr. Gladstone, after having finished 
the perusal of the extract, made no remark, the Ministerial cheers were 
renewed, and their journals the next morning commented on Mr. 
Hardy's quotations as a triumphant “ exposure” of Mr. Gladstone’s 
inconsistency. Now, it strikes me that this is a very strange way of 
defending the Irish Establishment. 'Whether Mr. Gladstone did or 
did not write the letter which Mr. Hardy, a Cabinet Minister, quoted, 
it does not make the case of the State Church in any respect better. 
The personal question may be of some interest; but it has nothing 
whatever to do with the political question before Barliament and the 
Nation. The letter, too, after being published anonymously in a news¬ 
paper, and being obviously a private communication, is quoted without 
notice, by a Minister who sets himself categorically to inquire whether 
the leader of the Opposition was the author of it or not. The rule has 
always been to judge public men by their public outs, lhe letter is 
said to have been written previous to the general election of 1865 to 
one of Mr. Gladstone's constituents who made his vote contingent on 
the answer he might receive. But Mr. Gladstone had made a speech 
on the Irish Church during the session of 1865. Though some of the 
Tory organs still presume to refer to that address as another proof 
of liis alleged inconsistency, it is an undoubted fact that Mr. Glad¬ 
stone then condemned the Irish Establishment in the most marked 
manner, and expressly reserved the question as “ one of the future.” 
This speech was indignantly commented upon by the Irish Tory Mem¬ 
bers and the Irish Tory' organs as unequivocally hostile to the 
continuance of the Establishment. It was this expression of opinion 
on the Irish Church, with a similar expression of opinion during the 
same Session on Reform, that led to Mr. Gladstone’s rejection by the 


214 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


Oxford University. Mr. Gladstone’s correspondent must have thought 
that there was some doubt of Mr. Gladstone’s soundness on the Irish 
Church ; or why should he have written to Mr. Gladstone at all on the 
question ? The letter, too, in no way defends the Irish Establishment. 
It admits, indeed, that the question is not immediately j)ressing ; and 
that the author did not expect it soon to be engaging the attention of 
Parliament. But beyond intimating that Mr. Gladstone had some 
doubts on the interpretation of the Act of Union with regard to the 
position of the hierarchy, in the event of Parliament undertaking to 
redress the grievance of Establishment, it really says little. It implies, 
indeed, that the Irish Establishment could not be defended. Events 
have moved faster than Mr. Gladstone expected them to move during 
the last Session of Lord Palmerston's Administration, and the progress 
of opinion has been much more rapid. And that's all. Since Mr. 
Gladstone wrote that letter—if he did write it—we have had the Habeas 
Corpus Act suspended for three years, and we have—Can Mr. Gathornf. 
Hardy realize the fact?—had Household Suffrage conceded in England 
by himself and his colleagues. The Irish Reform Bill, now T before the 
House, proposes a great reduction in the Borough Franchise, which the 
Ministers will maintain to he equivalent to the Household Suffrage of 
the English Reform Act. Mr. Hardy is very much mistaken if he thinks 
that such a Reform in the representation could be made without 
having great effect on other political questions. It lias precipitated all 
other reforms. As I have repeatedly said, it at once made the Irish 
Church untenable. For what is the Irish Church ? It is the Church 
of some five hundred thousand people in a country of between five and 
six millions, and in this country nearly all householders arc soon likely 
to have votes. Household Suffrage is the deat.li-knell of privilege ; and 
especially of the privileges of the Church of a small minority of the 
population. Mr. Gladstone might not believe in 1805 that he would 
be called upon to disestablish the Irish Church ; but neither did he 
believe in 1865 that two years afterwards Household Suffrage would 
he a great fact, and that it would be conceded by Mr. Gathorne Hardy 
and liis Tory colleagues. No person disputes the sincerity of Mr. 
Macaulay’s convictions on the necessity of a Reform in the representa¬ 
tion before the year 1831. But we find him in 1828, at the close of his 
review of Hallam’s Constitutional History, speaking of the time for that 
Reform as indefinitely distant, though certain one day to come. The 
shrewdest political observers could not foresee in 1865, while Lord 
Palmerston was still Prime Minister, that Household Suffrage would 
so soon be carried, and that the Irish Church might soon be disestab¬ 
lished. Had Lord Palmerston's life and strength been prolonged until 
this time, these questions might, though with some difficulty, still have 
been deferred. It is no secret that so long as Lord Palmerston lived, 
Mr. .Disraeli could not “educate” the Tories, and that they never would 
during Lord Palmerston’s life, have supported Household Suffrage. It 
is, indeed, amusing to see the followers of a Prime Minister who, in 
1844, solemnly declared the Irish Establishment an “ alien Church,” 
and who, not three weeks ago, acknowledged, on his “ historical 
conscience,” that those words were true, accusing Mr. Gladstone of 
inconsistency, because he has repudiated the prejudices of his youth, 
and has moved with the progress of the times. There is not so much 
inconsistency between Mr. Gladstone’s private letter in 1865 and his 
actions now, as there is between Mr. Disraeli’s letter to Lord Dartmouth 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


215 


last week and the amendment which Lord Stanley moved last Monday ; 
or between the speech Lord Stanley then delivered and the address of 
Mr. Gathorne Hardy on the following night. 

Most anxiously desiring that the grateful admiration in which you 
are held throughout the Nation for the boldness and the brilliancy of 
your views of Human Rights,—“ the supreme good of the State, 
shall farther stimulate your exertions, sustain your moral courage, 
and strengthen your determination in promoting the progressive 
amelioration of mankind,—I am, dear Sir, your cordial co-operator in 
the universal cause of humanity, 

John Scott. 


LETTER XII. 

Belfast, 59, Victoria Terrace, 
April 4t/i, 1868. 

The Right Hon. B. Disraeli, Prime 
Minister of Britain. 

Dear Sir, —I think there is not now much left of the pretence that 
the Coronation Oath and the Act of Union can prevent this 01 any 
Parliament from doing justice upon the Irish Establishment. . Pio- 
bably this ridiculous plea, which was raised with such a flourish at 
the outset of the debate, was best laughed out of existence by Mr. 
Lowe, when he pointed out that it was employed by the side which 
maintained that the present Parliament could not bind the next one 
to take in hand Disestablishment! The Irish Church stands by itse , 
a melancholy failure as regards its mission, a consecrated block-house, 
an episcopal garrison, an insult, and an irreligious, because oppiessne 
institution. The Tories bewail the historical event ot Catholic Eman¬ 
cipation, and proudly recount the part they took against it. What can 
we say of such legislators, who have about them the charm of an ancient 
ruin, picturesque and romantic, but utterly without use? Geneia 
Peel took great credit to himself for having said, on the occasion oi 
his anti-Emancipation vote, that “the times would change. Now 
“ the times are changed;” and after such a verification the good old 
Tory professional mankiller asks with prophetic complacency it lie 
was not right ? Nay, more, he foreboded that Catholic Emancipation 
would lead to Disestablishment; and, lo ! the thing is taking place ! Oi 
course it is. Justice makes justice easy ; and good laws lead to better 
laws. If he will repeat his vaticination he may complete his lame as 
a seer, for assuredly the times will go on changing, and this approach¬ 
ing act of equity will necessitate other and nobler acts. What rnoie 
needs to be said about it all, as Mr. Lowe observed, than that out ot 
every 100 Irishmen, there are 78 Catholics, 12 Protestants, and 1 
Dissenters, and that the last are bribed with the Return Donum to let 
the second have all the tithes and endowments of the country ? llie 
Tory party, as the same speaker pointed out, are mad enough to bind 
this dead and rotten injustice to the living body of the English Church, 
or to defend it by the miserable plea that it is not worth while to do a 
piece of honest restitution! Mr. Lowe made a telling assault upon 
the zigza" policy,—if policy it can be called,—with which such fears 
and follies are championed. He compared the Irish Establishment 
very eloquently to a tree without blossoms, without fruit, sterile, con- 



216 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


demned, cumbering tlie ground, “ as an Establishment." From Sir 
John Gray the Establishment met with an outspoken expression of 
hostility ; and in his best style, Mr. Bernal Osborne overwhelmed 
the institution and its defenders with a torrent of ridicule. There is, 
however, no need for much further talk to secure the final judgment; 
the case is clear. Justice and real religious interests are on one side ; 
fear, pride, and Episcopal Christianity on the other. Europe watches 
to see whether the Legislative •’Assembly which boasts to be the freest 
and most enlightened in the world, has love of freedom enough to 
abolish a monument of tyranny, and confidence enough in right to 
abolish a palpable wrong. “As an Establishment it must cease to 
exist”: the mover of the amendment owned as much by the speech in 
which he chilled his party with cold truth and good sense. The aban¬ 
donment will not entail the slightest loss to the power of Britain or to 
the true interests of religion. Nothing has been more distinctly 
brought out in this debate than the fact, that, in spite of party intrigue 
or the dissent of a sectarian minority, Ireland will be more than con¬ 
ciliated,—will be overborne with gratitude by an act of pure justice 
which has been deferred for centuries; and in the nobler influences 
thus newly established among the fervid and sensitive, religion itself 
must share the conquest newly achieved for the British Crown in the 
name of Political Justice. 

Nothing more clearly indicates the exact position of the Church 
Establishment in Ireland than the debate, which was begun so sud¬ 
denly, which was conducted so vigorously, and that ended so satisfac¬ 
torily. The Irish people have had amongst them for centuries an insti¬ 
tution which could not bear the light of examination, and which was 
sustained by a forced toleration, instigated by an unmeaning prejudice. 
At all times there was a war between the sentiment that revolted 
from imposture and the interest that recognized it; and inasmuch as 
the selfish generally predominates over the generous, the supremacy 
of wrong was maintained in the teeth of the indefeasible claims of 
justice. Under such circumstances, it required moral boldness to 
attack obstinacy, scientific faith to encounter bigotry, mental strength 
to ensure triumph. Under ordinary circumstances, it would have 
taken years to clear the ground for the attack which was made with 
lofty boldness, carried on with chivalrous daring, and conducted to a 
most honorable termination. The Church Establishment was trenched 
round and round with ramparts of ancient date and mould. Those 
who raised them bequeathed their defence to their successors, and left 
them a legacy of service which, however ignoble, was not lightly to 
be discarded. With this inheritance were bound up obligations, which 
misguided conscience and misguided desires accepted as duties, and 
which to the last will be relied upon as the justification of theoretical 
error and political wrong. Thirty years ago, all the arguments lat¬ 
terly advanced against the existence of Ireland’s greatest grievance 
were stated with an intellectual force and eloquence to which cotem¬ 
porary genius and zeal could impart no additional lustre. Nay, more, 
I question but the denunciations launched against what was regarded 
as a scandal in 1830, were more vehement and sincere than those 
leveled against what is looked upon as an intolerable grievance in 1868. 
Reformers must, therefore, trace the manifestation and exercise of 
this new-born zeal in the cause of Justice to the right source ; and, 
discarding platitude and affectation attribute it to the disaffection 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


217 


which lias made the wise think and the foolish fret. The throes of 
revolution have made the powerful quake ; the multiplied shadows oi 
a ubiquitous Nemesis have made the most daring tremble. I he 
handwriting upon the wall was too visible to be ignored, and those 
who would avoid ruin had to acknowledge repentance. To the eternal 
credit of Mr. Gladstone it must be said that lie has duly estimated, 
weighed, and met the crisis. It required no ordinary strength ot mind 
to discard the chartered dilatoriness ot years and to precipitate an 
issue from which some definite result should flow. It required no 
commonplace courage to head an onslaught which had all the appear¬ 
ance of a forlorn hope ; it required no mean ability to achieve a victory 
which was considered, even at the present day, beyond the leacli o 
political prowess. But as the Church Establishment was old m 
iniquity, as it had been often beleaguered, as it had survived many 
attacks, it could only be stormed by the sudden dash oi a bold man, 
the vigor of a strong one, and the might ot a powerful one. Thus 1 
is I have ventured to say that the character of the late debate fully 
illustrated the condition of the Church Establishment; for Logic, 
Political Science, enlightenment, and honesty had to contend against 
prejudice, ignorance, and partiality; and m the final struggle the calm 
appeal to Justice had to meet the reckless defiance, oi audacit}. The 
very essence of the question at issue may be found m Mr Gladstone s 
and your speeches. All the floating logic and argumentation which 
the tide of the great debate bore on its surface, were combined m the 
concentrated current in which our two great champions sought their 
goals. Conviction as well as interest had its culmination m those 
closing sentences which preceded the division. They embiaced a 
that had been said before, and contained much that need not be said 
acrain. As regards yourself, it must be observed that you had to plaj 
a°desperate game. Your principles and your policy had received a 
severe 1 handling, not merely from your opponents, but from the ablest of 
those who by political profession might be considered your h lends. 
Lord Cranborne, with the strength of a spirit which was not weakened 
by official pliability, tore to atoms the flimsy pretexts on winch^ou 
based your ignominious prelude to a disgraceful retreat. He at lea 
took his stand by the flag which lie acknowledged, and to w lllc ^ 1 
had vowed adherence ; but even Ins honor, spotless as it was, could 
not prevent renegades from attempting a spurious imitation ot its 
bistre 411 the arguments of your Government were directed towaids 
the justification of a policy which combined obdurate obstinacy with 
extravagant concession. Lord Stanley was ready to break up, modify 
reform and retrench the Establishment. His declaration was not 
paSle to most of his followers, and, accordingly many of his col¬ 
leagues roundly repudiated his sentiments and scouted his propositions 
Ti *? ' reserved for you to give a harmonious picture, m so fai as 
rhetoric could blend inconsistencies,of these political differences. You 
at least had no scruple in saying and unsayrn^ affinmng 

ra-omisins and repudiating, encouraging and deceiving. _ lutteih pci 

son d and eYemously egotistic, your vanity and your virulence ran m 
bonai ana e le y » but the remon strances of an impatient 

Houle seemtd capable of controlling tlie vagrancy of a disordered mind 
aT,d the eSesses of an uncontrollable temper. You had nothing to 
‘ i • i GUnfpsman would have condescended to advance, no 

argument' to use which a logical thinker would have deigned to employ. 


218 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


Ready to take another leap in the dark, but restrained by the powerful 
hold of an immovable party, you had to prance in fetters and chafe 
against a galling hit. Your own convictions, the old opinions of your 
life, the long nurtured sentiments of many years of thought and ex¬ 
perience, rose in arms against the utterances which expediency dic¬ 
tated, and in the conflict silent conscience was more powerful and 
effective than the bitter railing tongue. You made simply the speech 
of a hold partisan. Happy and effective only when you could deliver 
a blow against an enemy, and less happy than usual because of your 
irritation, you were importunate, infelicitous, and impotent in all your 
attempts to sustain the cunning design of your waning Statesmanship. 
Your sarcasms had the serpent’s sting, but also the serpent's malice 
in them ; your wit was too personal to be amusing, and your ingenuity 
had the quality which produces astonishment but does not cause 
respect, in a word, your fighting for the Church Establishment was 
like a lawyer pleading a cause which his conscience abhorred, but on 
which his reputation rested. In pleasing contrast to this sorry vacil¬ 
lating Statesmanship was Mr. Gladstone’s bold and determined stand. 
He had no artifices to conceal, no tricks to explain, no double-dealing 
to justify. The past had no shame for him, the future no terrors. 
Armed with conviction, he shrank not from the course which duty 
dictated; and as fearless in its pursuit as in its adoption, he enun¬ 
ciated the principles which it will be as much his glory to carry out 
as it is his pride to avow. I could make allowances for your ambition, 
and for your natural embarrassments, which a characteristic vanity 
must, under existing circumstances, materially aggravate. Your 
spleen, your cunning, your dazzling ingenuity, and puzzling fictions, 
are all worthy of you ; but there is a malignity and a political base¬ 
ness in your last desperate resource for the retention of power from 
which charlatanism itself would revolt. The effort to raise a No- 
Popery cry,—the malignant device by which the removal of a flagrant 
abuse is associated with danger to the Throne and Constitution, is 
foreign to modern Statesmanship, and worthy only of the political 
profligacy of the times when honor was, if not unknown, at least 
unrecognized. The liberal Protestants of England and Scotland, and 
the staunch Catholics of Ireland have given an answer to this imputa¬ 
tion. Loyal to the Throne and faithful to the Constitution, they do 
not shrink from uniting in an effort which must give stability to the 
one and strength to the other, and increase the blessings which both 
are intended to disseminate. Not a single Irish Catholic member 
deserted Mr. Gladstone in the late division. Irish representatives 
know the importance of the fight in which they are engaged,—they 
know that with the Church Establishment will disappear the worst 
evils of their country: and, alive to this fact, they have been faithful 
to their duty. The fight is commencing. Integrity, fidelity, and 
perseverance are necessary for its successful termination. I have no 
doubt of the triumphant result. The attack has been made under the 
right leader and with the right forces ; and to your miserable Tory cry 
of “No Popery,” four millions of voices, cheered with the prospect of 
legalized liberty, will answer “ equality.” 

The complete success of Mr. Gladstone’s first stroke against the 
doomed Irish Church Establishment has caused a considerable flutter 
amongst the Irish Tories. It is rumored that a large deputation 
from the State Episcopacy was in London during the recent debate, 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


219 


and suggested to their Ministerial friends, as a compromise, the aboli¬ 
tion of six of the present twelve bishoprics, and the giving of a con¬ 
siderable proportion, varying according to the opinion of the bishops 
from a third to a half, of the entire revenues of the Establishment. 

It is said that this idea has penetrated so deeply into the minds of 
those who are most interested in the saving of the Anglican Church m 
Ireland that an effort will be made to get the Royal Commission to 
indicate some such change as a suitable one, in order to give the Go¬ 
vernment an opportunity of maintaining their “consistency” by acting 
on the report of the Commission, and not on the suggestion which is 
now to be made through the Commission to them. A compromise is 
strongly advised by some of the London papers. Alluding to the 
largeness of Mr. Gladstone’s majority, they write “ This majority 
speaks in language that cannot be misunderstood. Delay is possible,— 
the end is inevitable, unless those whose interests are involved take 
council together, and agree to such a compromise as may satisfy the 
exigencies of the hour. It may be that this would be regaided as a 
sacrifice of principle and expediency, and that earnest Churchmen 
will reject such a suggestion. This, however, is not the course which 
recent political experience would render advisable. We live m an 
a^e of compromises, and it is for those whose existence is at sta ce 
whether they will not be wise, and anticipate the coming stoiin. 
Rumors of the most dissimilar character are freely passing current 
through London society. One refers to the choice of a dissolution. 
They might as well talk of any other impossible eventuality. A dis¬ 
solution is at any time resisted by the Sovereign, unless on the positive 
assurance of the Minister seeking the power that he can reverse, oy a 
dissolution, the majority obtained yesterday morning against you ! 
Besides, there must be a dissolution and anew Parliament elected early 
next Whiter, which in itself would be sufficient to the Queen s objecting 
to a dissolution at present. It must be confessed, I think, that those 
who speculate on a resignation are equally incorrect. My belief is that 
you will hold on as long as you can, though it is said your forthcoming 
Budget will be anything but satisfactory, and will not tend to increase 
the confidence of the commercial classes m your Cabinet. I lie Dublin 
correspondent of the Times, whose strong leanings towards the ‘ Hideous 
Scandal” and very evidently, almost unconsciously, if not quite so, admits 
the whole case against his favoriteBoth parties are thoroughly 
convinced that the ultimate decision of the question rests with tlieBn- 
tish people, and no pains will be spared bv each to enlist their support. 
Church defence meetings are still being held m various parts of Ireland. 
The defensive organization is becoming more energetic as the dangei 
becomes more imminent; on the other hand monster meetings are m 
contemplation to bring the weight of the popular feeling into the scale. 
There is a great deal of meaning in these few and apparently simple 
words. That a question whose decision vitally affects Ireland has lia 
to be removed to the judgment court, not of the Imperial Parliament, 
but of the British people, imports much. Surely it is not a merely 
sentimental grievance that would be relegated to so vast a judicial body. 
If any doubt were felt about this, it would be removed by the conclud¬ 
ing words of the paragraph I have quoted—“ Monster meetings are in 
contemplation to bring the weight of the popular feeling 'into the scale. 
Hitherto we were told, by the same authority, that the people cared 
nothin" about the “ Church question,” which was merely set afloat by 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


a few interested, professional agitators. The sweeping triumph of the 
Liberal party last night, or rather this morning, was really greater 
than at first appears, as not a few of its members, who would have voted 
with the majority, were absent. 

It was in the midst of quite a hurly-burly that you rose in your 
most cheerful, and what you intended to be your most pleasing manner, 
to signify that, after all, it had been judged best to move the adjourn¬ 
ment for the holidays, as usual, at the beginning of the evening, and 
proceeded to state that, on the possible but “ unreasonable” supposi¬ 
tion that Mr. Gladstone got a majority on the question that the 
Speaker do leave the chair, you should be prepared to consent to going 
into committee pro forma, and then that the Resolutions should be post¬ 
poned until Monday, 28th inst. There was a good deal of amusement 
excited by your way of setting all this forth, which could not be under¬ 
stood from any description. The proposition was accepted by Mr. 
Gladstone with a slight protest on the ground that he did not desire 
to give the British people an idea that there was haste or hurry in 
dealing with the question in hand,—a remark which was much cheered; 
while he bantered you about his having seen more strange things than 
that there should be a majority against you. The House seemed to 
take it that you were only exercising a wise prevision under the cir¬ 
cumstances, in the event gentlemen’s minds were relieved by the 
carrying of the adjournment finally. By this time there was, if that 
be possible, a still larger audience than on the previous nights of the 
debate ; and conspicuous amongst the spectators were Prince Arthur, 
Prince Christian, and Prince Teck. There was so much talk and con¬ 
fusion that most of the notices passed unobserved, though Mr. Otway 
let it be generally known that he means to move in the matter of 
the double government of the army, and the relations between the War 
Department and the Horse Guards. Most of the mass of matter 
intervening between the adjourned debate had been cleared away, when 
Mr. Vance, and after him Mr. Whalley, interposed with demands on 
Mr. Gladstone to state what he meant to do w r ith the Regium Donum 
and the grant to Mavnooth. He gave an answer to the former under 
protest, but observed a becoming silence towards the latter gentleman. 
At length, an hour later than usual, Mr. Coleridge was allowed to 
resume the debate on the Irish Church ; and he proceeded to deliver a 
speech of great rhetorical power, commencing with close argument, 
rising to tempered emphasis when he spoke of the Irish Church his¬ 
torically and socially, and being specially incisive when he was showing 
up the members of your Government as they appeared in the debate. 
It was one of those addresses to which the House listens intently, 
checking cheers that ever and anon involuntarily bubble up, lest "a 
word should be lost, but giving itself ample compensation for this 
reticence by a very whirlwind of applause on the graceful and eloquent 
peroration. After him there w r as an anti-climax, for Mr. Beresford 
Hope was allowed to perform, with eminent success, the function of 
clearing the House; and thus it happened that Mr. Stanfeld’s mas¬ 
sive speech was delivered under depressing circumstances; which, 
however, did not seem to influence him detrimentally. Besides, he 
was subjected to a very great disadvantage, in being interrupted when 
in full swing by a summons from the Lords to attend a Royal Com¬ 
mission. It then became Lord Mayo’s duty to speak to the people 
outside through the press,—for there was very little House to address,— 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


221 


and. he did so in liis usual quiet manner, and from his usual point of 
view. There was a rush of candidates for the next word, and out of 
them was chosen Colonel Greville-Nugent, who was followed by Sir 
Charles Lanyon, thus keeping up the party see-saw. Somehow’ Sir 
Thomas Lloyd got in something about the Church in Wales, and then 
another son of Lord Abercorn, the Viscount Hamilton, made his first 
speech, but with nothing of the “go” of his brother, who appeared on 
the previous evening. While he was speaking, and just at ten o’clock, 
you, who had been absent for a while, returned to your place, and 
immediately afterwards Prince Arthur, Prince Christian, and Prince 
Teck, who had been aw r ay, resumed their seats in the gallery. The 
main topic of Mr. Cardwell’s speech w T as a challenge to you to lay 
down some definite issue on which a decision might be arrived at; and 
the challenge was instantly answered by your appearance, and you 
received an ovation from your followers. You began in calm and 
measured tones to justify the course taken by your Government in 
meeting the motion, stating that it v T as just doubtful whether moving 
the “previous question” would have been satisfactory ; while to have 
moved a direct negative would have been to den}'' that any change was 
necessary in the Irish Church, whereas you were of opinion that con¬ 
siderable modifications w 7 ere necessary in that institution; and lienee 
the amendment, which presented an unequivocal issue, but which, in 
conformity with an axiom of Sir Robert Peel, did not signify the 
policy of your Government. This naturally caused much good- 
humored laughter, probably the exact object intended, being the first 
step in “educating” the House to receive your speech without an active 
spirit of antagonism ! Having thus made the House pleasant 'with 
vou, then you suddenly went into sharp criticism on the suddenness 
of Mr. Gladstone’s convictions, and, in high-sounding phrase, and 
with elevated voice, protested against Parliament being called on to 
strike at a vital article of the Act of Union at eight days’ notice. You 
had thus got into what may be called your grand manner, but almost 
immediately you again became colloquial. Then you fell sarcastically 
on Lord Cranborne, admitting him to be a man of great power, not 
wanting in vindictiveness, and a master of invective,—which, however, 
wanted finish. You alluded, amidst some rather disapproving noises, 
to that noble lord’s faculty of writing anonymous attacks, and taunted 
him with his opposition to a Reform Bill which would, you believed, 
produce a spirited and patriotic Parliament. Wondrously amused was 
the'House when you talked of Mr. Lowe rivalling Lord Cranborne, 
and coming, you “ would not say out of his cave,” to join in a chorus 
of railing against the Government. It was with an approach to dignity 
that you declined, from the place in which you stood, to defend your 
character and career against the attacks which had been made upon 
you. Then your history of Mr. Lowe’s universal hatreds, including, 
until now, “ when the hour and the man had come,”—even Mr. Glad¬ 
stone himself,—was inimitably droll, but not more droll than a state¬ 
ment “ that you never attacked any one in your life.” Here you were 
interrupted by boisterous shouts of incredulity and cries of “ Peel; ’ 
but you slid out of the difficulty by quietly adding, “ unless you had 
been first assailed.” Next you set about to prove, somewhat labo¬ 
riously, that there was no crisis just now in Iieland. 

The mode in which you disposed of the idea that the Irish are a 
conquered race was, indeed, very humorous, and probably the most 


222 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


laughter came from the Opposition side. Nevertheless, they gave a very 
significant cheer when you said that you were about to deal with a 
practical question ; so significant that you tried to justify your having 
hitherto mainly bantered with the subject. M ith some solemnity you 
proceeded to enunciate a policy of the utmost conciliation to Ireland, 
a policy which you had always unswervingly maintained ; but, truth 
to say at this point you were a little dreary, speaking in a very low 
tone of voice ; you were only a little more energetic when you said that 
you meant to construct, and not to destroy in Ireland. Nor were you 
especially vigorous when you contrasted your policy with that of Mr. 
Gladstone. For the rest, there was a long-drawn-out and somewdiat 
moony protest against the plunder of Churches generally, and the Church 
of Ireland in particular, and a lamentation over the passing away of that 
policy of conciliation which would have blended the Irish people into 
one, on the basis of equality; while you reproduced your old argu¬ 
ment that, if Government is dissociated from religion, it is a mere 
affair of police, and that you cannot connect Government with religion 
except by Establishments. Seeming to take a new departure, there 
was a loud cry of “ Divide !”—that is, the usual hint to curtail, and, 
indeed, to conclude. Your peroration consisted of mysterious talk 
about a combination of Kitualism and Popery, of which Mr. Gladstone 
was the representative, to shake the tenure of the Crown,—an attempt 
which would meet with your determined opposition. Calmly, but 
emphatically, Mr. Gladstone began by uttering some scathing words 
about the wandering and irrelevance of a speech which seemed to be 
the product of a heated imagination, and proceeded to treat in like 
fashion most of those passages which you seemed to plume yourself on 
as most pointed, a lofty scorn predominating in liis voice, manner, and 
language. Turning from personal retort, he commenced and continued 
a statement-of-fact explanation, in reply to arguments used against 
him, all through the debate, with a clearness, sequence, and spontaneity 
which contrasted strongly with your cumbrous and erratic utterances. 
With a rushing peroration he concluded a comprehensive and compact 
speech, full of his special characteristics, amidst applause so long, so 
strong, and so universal, as to indicate that it came from a united 
party this time at least. The succeeding scene, beginning with the 
turning out of the strangers, at the head of whom was the Prince of 
Wales, was familiar in its features, but fresh in its excitement. When 
Mr. Glyn, assuming for the first time the proud function of announcing 
a Liberal victory, headed the tellers, the shouts were those of a frenzy 
of jov, exaggerated, if possible, when the numbers were stated,—330 to 
270 showing a majoring of 60 for the preliminary motion. Then the 
question that the House do go into committee was put, and another 
division took place, rather more quietly. The result was nearly as 
satisfactory as before, for the Liberals won by 56, the numbers being 
328 to 272. Mr. Gladstone formally stated his first Kesolution in 
committee, progress was immediately reported, and, with one more 
lusty shout from the Liberals, the House dissolved away. 

Diversities of talents,—of mental gifts,—are as indispensable in 
the present day as in any former age. One star differs from another 
in the mental and social world as well as in the physical realms of 
space. One man shines brightest in the select social circle of intimate 
friends,—another on the platform before the great audience of the 
inquiring lovers of Science,—and a third in his place in Parliament 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


228 


promoting the legal recognition of Human Rights, —“ the supreme good 
of the State,”—in the presence of a promiscuous assembly of excited 
party men and time-serving politicians. The first of these is loved for 
liis amiable qualities ; the second on account of his intellectual re¬ 
sources,—his knowledge of Truth and Justice,—and rhetorical powers ; 
and the third for his public and patriotic spirit. In some rare cases 
we find a union of all these attractions. Some can descend from the 
platform, where they had instructed, edified, and electrified the breath¬ 
less audience, and mingle in the family or select circle, exhibiting all 
the sympathies of a friend and brother. There they cease to thrill 
by the force of their oratory, and give full vent to the flow of all the 
social affections. On the platform they command respect, and in the 
select circle they are loved and admired. A few there are who can 
extend their sympathies beyond the family and domestic circle,— 
beyond the love of a large audience, and embrace the welfare of the 
whole party with which they are connected,—of the entire popula¬ 
tion,—of the country in which they dwell,—and of the wide extent of 
the human family. Now they may be seen enjoying all the quiet and 
all the sweetness of chastened domestic affection,—now they enter the 
public meeting, and there fearlessly speak out their political principles 
to their various auditors,—now they ascend the public platform, and 
plead with energy and ardor the cause of suffering humanity. Now 
they plead party interests as if there were no others,—now they advocate 
Human Rights, —the cause of all mankind, as if no party interests 
existed. Now they fill with triumph the minds of some political fac¬ 
tion,—now they wither with their frown the hopes of some rival organi¬ 
zation. There are periods in the history of social and political progress 
when the platform and the social circle have to be summoned to the aid 
of political advancement,—periods when the politician must not only 
act his part well among his companions, but when he must appear on 
the platform as a combatant, and in the family and in the social circle 
as an advocate of Truth and Justice,—as the determined promoter of 
the Equality of Human Rights. There have been always some politi¬ 
cians specially qualified for such exigencies. They can delight a 
crowded audience as often as they speak,—they can draw out crowds 
as often as they appear on the platform,—and they can, like Mr. John 
Bright, from town to town, prosecute their mission with assiduity and 
success. Those who have formed their opinion of you from reading 
your speeches during your adventurous political career, and who have 
not had their views modified by ocular demonstration, have erred 
grievously regarding your personal appearance. There are certain 
mental manifestations which every man couples with certain phy¬ 
sical developments. In reading an author, his image is intui¬ 
tively formed on the retina of the mind’s eye, and in general the 
image is just. With a crabbed, disjointed style, we naturally asso¬ 
ciate a bilious, unhealthy constitution,—a stunted, ill-arranged physical 
structure. With large, and generally correct and comprehensive views, 
couched in fierce sarcastic phrase, we associate a mind acting on the 
external world through organs not altogether pleasing to the eye. 
According to these principles, those who never saw }ou personally, 
but have formed their opinions entirely from your sayings, feel them¬ 
selves puzzled when they enter the House of the Common men in 
Westminster. The image on their minds is that of an Esau, —rough 
and savage, but the reality is meekness, blandness,—an impersonifi- 


224 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


cation of good nature and all the graces. The speeches which pro¬ 
duced the image were fierce, inflammatory, withering,—the person who 
delivered them is mild, gentle, and benignant. Instead of the political 
gladiator who fulminated thunderbolts against his opponents, we have 
one speaking peace and breathing good-will to all men. The puzzle can 
only be dissipated by a knowledge of the fact, that during your career 
in Opposition, you were not yourself. Your mind, naturally strong and 
ambitious, was depressed and distorted by the position you occupied 
as the tool of the Tories. There are politicians of decided talents who 
are left, through life, to labor in vain; but the man who possesses 
talent, and who is at all able to show that he possesses it, may have 
to endure the frown of jealous or of obtuse co-equals, but as soon as 
he risks the ocean of public opinion, he may count on a voyage safe 
and prosperous. 

When a man has to complain of the work he is expected to do, and 
likewise lias cause to grumble with the tools with which he is expected 
to accomplish it, he is certainly entitled to some share of public sym¬ 
pathy. Nothing could be more woe-begone than your countenance 
when you bewailed in the House of the Common men, the sad fate of 
a Minister so recently entrusted with power, suddenly and immediately 
called upon to revolutionize and turn topsy-turvy an Institution that 
had existed for centuries. The expression of your countenance, even 
in its most serene and satisfied aspect, is never very cheering or lively ; 
but when troubles fall thick and fast around you, it assumes a most 
lugubrious, if not pitiful, appearance. It resembles that of an old 
clothesman from Petticoat-lane whose day walking has been unpro¬ 
ductive of even a decent pair of trousers or a wearable hat. On the 
occasion to which I allude, you were in many respects more an object 
of sympathy than of envy. For the look that accompanied your plain¬ 
tive outbreak was far more eloquent than the mere words in which it 
was uttered. You cast a wistful and desponding glance around the 
ministerial benches, and that glance as much as said,—“ What can I 
do with the rubbish around me ? Even if I were a Hercules, these 
pigmies would nullify my strength.” And, in reality you are entitled 
to our warmest sympathy, notwithstanding that your political career 
is more calculated to command contempt than to excite commenda¬ 
tion. If you could only cast away the wretched nonentities that perti¬ 
naciously and parasitically cling to your coat-tails, and gather around 
you some of the leaders of the independent Liberals in Parliament, 
what a Bright future would be in store for yourself and the Nation ! 
As it is, whatever may be your Parliamentary successes, your oratorical 
triumphs, or your party victories, your tenure of office cannot be con¬ 
sidered secure from one day to another. Personally, you are popular 
enough in the country, but your surroundings inspire distrust. You 
resemble a skillful general in command of a worthless army. All your 
tact and talent avail nothing, for the stupidity and servility of your 
followers mar and nullify your best efforts. Y r ou are, as it"were, the 
sole support of yourself and your Government. You have to confront 
a very formidable phalanx of oratorical, political, financial, scientific, 
and philosophical power, represented as it were, by Messrs. Bright, 
Gladstone, Mill, sufficient to discomfort the most able of statesmen, 
even when well supported by his followers. But what can even a 
genius like your’s be expected to effect with such dreary, almost worth¬ 
less, colleagues and supporters as the Malmesburys, Devons, Marl- 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


225 


boroughs, Montroses, Buckinghams, Montagues, Hunts, and other 
ministers in and out of the Cabinet, that would inevitably be demo¬ 
lished by one logical sentence of Mr. Mill’s, one sarcasm of John 
Bright’s, or one of Mr. Gladstone’s outbursts of eloquence ! The 
British army has been compared to a band of Lions led by Asses, the 
rank-and-file being typified by the noble, and the officers by the less 
noble beast. It appears to me that the Tory forces are precisely in the 
opposite predicament, you as their leader being a giant in intellect, 
whilst themselves are little better than a flock of incapables, utterly 
unworthy the shepherd who has led them into the fat pasturage of 
Downing street. You may by the power of political chicanery, be 
victorious to-day over Mr. Gladstone, and consequently retain 
power, place, and patronage ior a limited period oi time , but it would 
be as preposterous to suppose that folly will ultimately prevail over 
wisdom and science, as to imagine that you as the Tory leadei with 
your imbecile surroundings,—your Dukes, Lords, and Baronets, con¬ 
stituting the Tory Cabinet,—can long maintain your post in the face of 
the mental power by which you are opposed. Tour Premiership, it 
must, however, he admitted, has fallen upon evil times. Yoai en¬ 
trance into Downing street took place at a most unfortunate period. 
The Irish question at once fastened itself round your neck, and weighed 
upon you like a Millstone. The Irish question has strangled, a dozen 
Ministries, and extinguished a score of statesmen, and this because 
none of them dare grapple boldly and manfully with the monster. 
Procrastination in dealing with Irish subjects lias been the rock on 
which many Ministries have split, and possibly that of yours will be 
shipwrecked in a like manner. You may plead as an excuse tor 
dilatory action, that the crew you command are not to be depended 
upon, and unequal to encounter the difficulties of the situation. This, 
after all, is the most valid, plausible excuse you can offer, but it will 
not satisfy the intelligent population of the Nation ; and if you cannot 
obtain aii efficient crew for your ship, the helm will assuredly be 
speedily wrested from your grasp, and placed m the hand oi a more 
daring pilot, with more trustworthy followers. Strange indeed is the 
farce carried on between the fictitious and the real man, m your case, 

_between the masque and the countenance which it conceals, you 

are always found of late acting a double-part, so that you can scarcely 
distinguish between Truth and Falsehood, and though fully aware of 
your specious pretexts you constantly dally with lies till you believe 

them to be truths. , ,. , 

Your Ministry may have its own work to do and its own testimony to 

bear • the measure of its departure from Truth and Justice being 
simply the measure of its unfaithfulness to its true vocation. But. it 
does not follow that Reformers are to dwell patiently with error or 
make terms of peace with existing wrong. The evil oi your policy may 
ultimately have a result for good, and yet, for its own sake, the e\il 
must he openly and consistently opposed. The evil may even exist as 
the result of causes over which we had no control, but none the less is 
it to be drawn to light, and faithfully uprooted. The good in all 
parties should be welcomed, as hopeful and instructive to all , w hile 
the evil should be examined for the homage it pays by its contrast, to 
the good, and in order to receive tl.e indignation of the m^^gent and 
wise promoters of the legal recognition ot Human Rights. it e 
supreme good of the State.” 'The just anger ot the wise and the far- 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


226 


seeing, arising from a deep and powerful cause, is like the ground- 
swell of the Atlantic, solemn and silent in its movements, though its 
power is in proportion ; whereas the brawling turbulence of the feeble¬ 
minded, trifling in itself, and excited by trifles, is like the ripple of 
the Summer squall, noisy and vexatious, but all on the surface, and 
gone as easily, and with apparently as little cause, as it is excited. 

I am, dear Sir, still occupying the self-appointed and very important 
position of being your unpaid political preceptor and impartial critic, as 
well as the unfaltering foe of your affected fanaticism, and the fearless 
friend of freedom; and, as you will also observe, one of those politi¬ 
cians who cannot be ensnared by your insidious eloquence, in which 
falsehood and a feigned sanctimoniousness usurp the semblance of 
truth and serious piety, 

John Scott. 


LETTER XIII. 

59, Victoria Terrace, Belfast, 
April 4 tht 1868. 

John Bright, Esq., M.P. 

Dear Sir, —From the moment of assembling last night, the House 
of the Common men presented that scene of excitement which usually 
heralds a great division. Every seat was taken ; and the manifest 
impatience with which honorable members heard the long list of ques¬ 
tions and answers was broken only when Mr. Disraeli, with more 
than ordinary blandness, told the House that should the Government 
amendment be defeated, Monday, the 27th instant, would be fixed for 
the discussion of Mr. Gladstone’s Resolutions. After the patience of 
the House had been well-nigh exhausted, Mr. Coleridge began the ad¬ 
journed debate in a speech that will long live in the memory of those 
who heard it. As a piece of art, the oration has seldom been equalled 
even in an assembly which has added imperishable chapters to the 
literature of debate. In singularly persuasive tones, and in a voice of 
silvery softness, he set forth the arguments with which the Irish 
Church had been defended ; and, with the skill of a trained dialectician, 
he then showed that, one and all, those arguments were not only un¬ 
sound, but absolutely meaningless. None of the speeches which had 
been previously delivered, not even that of Mr. Lowe, was so full of 
close logical argument. Nor was the argument difficult to follow. 
Expressed in language of striking lucidity, the logical process was 
such as could not fail to reach the mind even of the dullest country 
gentlemen ; and when, after a beautiful peroration, Mr. Coleridge sat 
down amid the loud and prolonged cheers of the House, he had the 
satisfaction of knowing that he had done the cause of religious Liberalism 
signal service. In the task before him he had many advantages, apart 
from his dialectical and rhetorical powers. He belongs to a family 
illustrious for its attachment to the Church of England, and for its 
union of mental gifts with religious fervor. Flippant young talkers, 
therefore, could not pretend that he was an apostle or emissary of the 
Liberation Society. He was able to discuss the question from an 
English Churchman’s point of view, and from that point the Irish 
Church seems as hideous as from any other. Mr. Coleridge first 
took in hand the two great arguments of Toryism—that if Parliament 



POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


227 


disestablish the Church of Ireland it will deal a blow at the “ principle” 
of the connection between Church and State; and next, that the com¬ 
pact of the Union binds it not to disturb the existing arrangement. 
Reformers have repeatedly asked what is meant by the “ principle of 
establishments, and Mr. Coleridge showed that the word is simply a 
term by which loose thinkers attempt to hide their confusion of ideas. 
Such a “principle” has no existence. In one place Church establish¬ 
ments are good, in another bad. In England a connection between 
the Church and the State may be highly expedient; in Canada it-would 
be most unwise ; in India it would be insane. All that is meant by 
the big talk about “principle” is, that, if Parliament should cut the 
link between Church and State in Ireland, it shall furnish a ground for 
doing the same thing in England. Put it shall do so only if the two 
Churches are alike, or if that of England is destined to sink as low as 
that of Ireland. Now, no person, not even Mr. Miall himself, pie- 
tends that the two ecclesiastical bodies are on the same level; and, 
while the one can be attacked only because it is an establishment, the 
other invites the most complete condemnation simply because it is a 
bad establishment. If that ol England should ever become the Church 
of a small minority, representing a dominant class, then, indeed, it 
would deserve to be smitten down for the same causes that will make 
Parliament smite down that of Ireland. I util that day the Cliuic 1 
of England is safe ; and those who predict the coming of such a day 
are their Church’s worst foes ; unlike the Hebrew prophet, they curse 
what they have been commanded to bless. But have the British 
people a right to touch the temporalities of the Irish Church ? I he 
Tory gentlemen say that the people forming the Nation have not; and 
on Tuesday nihht Mr. Gathorne Hardy quoted from Sir James Graham 
a passage to the effect that Church property must be eternally sacred 
from the hand of appropriation. The fact is, as Mr. Coleridge said, 
that the whole of our statute-book gives the lie to that preposterous 
doctrine. In England, as in every other country, the State lias al¬ 
ways enforced its right to deal with the temporalities of the Church 
in the manner dictated by considerations of public welfare. But m 
this case, Reformers are told the Act of Union bars the way, since 
the fifth article of that compact provides for the continuance of the 
Establishment. A more futile argument could hardly be devised. If 
Parliament was competent to frame the Union, 1 arliament 18 C0 ^P®; 
tent to repeal it, or to alter it, or to set it aside m favor of another ar¬ 
rangement ; and Parliament, indeed, has already shown that it knows 
itself to be thus competent, by altering the fourth article of the: settle¬ 
ment. If the fourth may be altered, why not the fifth ? The real 
question is,—Does the welfare of the Empire call for the revision of the 
compact ? If so, the revision must take piace, no matter wliat Loid 
Plunket said forty years ago. It is hoped, for the credit of Parlia- 
ment that these simple truths, taken from the alphabet of Politics, 
“m not have to be stated much oftener before they become part of the 
creed of Toryism. The member for Exeter was succeeded by a spea c r 
of a very different Stamp. If the University of Cambridge has any 
regard for lo<nc, it ought to call upon Mr. Beeesfobd Hope to resign 

his lately-acquired seat on acount of his lo ^ e f { 

argumentation. To refute, or even to state lus arguments is, ol 
course superfluous. Fortunately, they were followed by a strong and 
luminous Speech from Mr. Stansfeld, which was one of the most 


228 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING- SWORD OF 


valuable contributions to the debate. Mr. Stansfeld is never afraid 
or ashamed of justice, and language like his disinfects the atmosphere 
of discussion from the miasma of falsehood and intrigue. He pointed 
out that the issue of the division was single and simple, that the 
Amendment would be fatal to action, and that it was meant to be 
fatal. The Government policy—if it could be called a policy—was, he 
said, to buy a renewal of Protestant ascendency by the bribe of a 
Catholic Endowment, and to amuse the world by manipulating the 
cash accounts of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Mr. Stansfeld 
did good service in manfully denouncing the view that Ireland cannot 
be won by Britain. Were she thus inveterately hostile, the case 
would be hopeless. But, as the member for Halifax admirably said, let 
Britain only recognize and respect her individuality—let the other divi¬ 
sions of the Nation treat her as a warm-tempered sister in the family of 
the Empire—and Britain can and shall win her affection. The disestab¬ 
lishment of the Irish Church is among the first steps that must be taken 
to secure that blessing. “Do not talk,” said Mr. Stansfeld, “ about 
the business of the Session, nor try to shunt us with questions about 
the destination of the surplus.” The Besolutions were and are justified; 
because, from the moment they were pronounced, Ireland was sure at 
last that British Statesmen were in earnest, and that the “ Garrison 
Church,” whether it were surrendered at the summons or defended, 
was equally doomed. Who can speak of Ireland without a mingled feel¬ 
ing of admiration and regret ? Ireland is a country lying for generations 
beneath the contemptible despotism of political rulers, whose weakness 
and insignificance convert obedience into a crime, and make the sem¬ 
blance of loyalty but an imputation upon manhood. Lord Mayo 
quoted Plunket, Grattan, Peel, and various other antique authori¬ 
ties, to keep himself in countenance while once more defending the 
Establishment in Ireland. Could he not see that it would be about 
as rational to cite Cicero in favor of a College of Augurs, or Arch¬ 
bishop Laud in support of the relations of Church and State ? The 
irrelevancy of the Tory pleas have been ludicrous. At one time it is 
the sacred interests of religion which are at stake ; at another 
the holy rights of property. The authors of the arguments 
have attempted the impossible task of at once “serving God and 
Mammon,” and have necessarily failed. In fact, till the out¬ 
rageous ecclesiastical outpost was seriously attacked, its own garri¬ 
son did not know how defenceless it was. In the same 
way the Government has gradually discovered the intensity of Parlia¬ 
mentary and public feeling, and the amendment would never have 
been made, if the Ministers had known that the whole Nation was so 
sick of “ modifications.” Justice, frank equalization of rights, 
generous resolve to satisfy and conciliate, sisterly goodwill—these and 
not “ modifications” are the things which must govern all the British 
people do ; if we want to preserve Ireland, let alone Churches and En¬ 
dowments. What Mr. Cardwell described, to the shame of Reformers 
all, is a conquered, not a kindred land ; kindred Reformers must now 
make it, or lose it. Mr. Disraeli could not pretend to face such facts, 
nor did it need the renewed eloquence and fidelity of Mr. Gladstone 
to recapitulate them ; and, long before the debate was finished, its in¬ 
evitable issue was seen. 

There are many Tories who now entertain the idea that at a certain 
point legislation should stop, or rather, never be commenced ; and as 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


229 


they believe the abolition of the Church Corporation in Ireland to be 
inconsistent with the Oath taken by the Queen on her Coronation, they 
argue either that the Oath should be amended, or that the Church 
should not be disturbed. There is a little logical difficulty or two 
which Tories are apt to overlook : as, for instance, the Queen has 
already taken the Oath, so that whatever virtue is in it is in full force, 
and cannot be diminished by another Coronation and an amended Oath. 
If Oaths bind the conscience, the conscience cannot be unloosed ; and 
if they do not, they are unnecessary. But, again, if there was a demise 
of the Crown, and the Prince of Wales were called to the throne, we 
might pass any number of Bills inconsistent with the Coronation Oath, 
between the day of his accession, and the day on which he was called 
upon to swear in Westminster Abbey. The one fact to be considered 
is : Does the Oath bind the Sovereign in her prerogative or in her 
legislative character as the First Estate of the realm ? A moment’s 
thought by any mind with neither aristocratic nor clerical tendencies, 
will settle the matter, and hold the Oath to be merely in restraint of 
prerogative. James II, one of the meanest organisms that ever took 
human shape, who held the doctrine that royalty was a thing from 
Heaven, with a right Divine to govern wrong, claimed and exercised a 
“dispensing power,” releasing his subjects from the penalties ot 
law and legislation, and of his own mere motion, and the caprice he 
called his will, enforced penalties unknown to the Constitution. For 
his “ dispensing power” the English people dispensed with him, and he 
fled into an exile from which he was doomed never to return. The 
sagacious men who invited William of Orange over to England took 
care to bind him by an Oath when he ascended the throne, that he 
would not alter the law or the institutions of the Nation, except with 
the consent of Parliament; in other words, that all alterations shall be 
made by the consent of the Three Estates of the realm. The King 
and Queen are, therefore, reduced to the first place in the Estates ; the 
prerogative is limited, and can only be exercised through responsible 
Ministers ; and the Ministers must be men chosen by Parliament, in¬ 
directly, out of persons entitled to their confidence. The simple truth 
is that the Queen is a cypher in government, representing only the 
necessity for an enormous outlay and a court; and the Tory Peers 
seem unable to comprehend that since two Reform Bills have passed, 
they are but cyphers too, with a T/eto they dare not exercise, except as 
a plea in bar, in order to obtain delay in judgment, just as a dishonest 
acceptor pleads that his acceptance is a forgery, so that lie may obtain 
time from his creditor. The aristocracy are alarmed, and Tory States¬ 
men only represent the feeling of alarm. They fear so much, that 
they dare not confess their fears. They would like the abolition of the 
Irish Church Corporation to be stopped by a technicality, in order that 
they may be saved from the ignominy of giving-in to the people, or the 
still more disastrous consequences which would flow from their opposi¬ 
tion. They try to believe that five nlost respectable old noblemen of 
the Privy Council of 1838, all of whom are now dead except Lord 
Russell, intended to make the Queen swear to preserve the United 
Church of England and Ireland “ to the utmost of her power.” George 
IY was the first king who ever swore to do so, and the Oath of the 
“ first gentleman in Europe,” must have given great satisfaction to the 
priests of a United Church, who every Sunday had to lead the Ten 
Commandments, as proper to be believed by the common people. The 


230 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


Queen, however, also swore to rule with the advice and assistance of 
Parliament; and if she is advised by Parliament to abolish a Corpora¬ 
tion of men, in order that the now unestablislied doctrine may become 
established, she may reasonably say that she is protecting the Protestant 
religion by the best means in her power—the Parliament. Aristocracy 
fails to see this, because what Aristocracy desires is to uphold corpor¬ 
ations and endowments, so that they may subserve as so many butlers 
between the peers and the people. With the aristocracy, the Crown 
itself was a mere contrivance to save them from another Cromwell in 
the time of James II. They became revolutionists, but took good 
care that the revolution was made a good thing for themselves, and 
they made the king swear that he would not exercise a “ dispensing 
power” over estates acquired by confiscation, as James II once ven¬ 
tured to do. The Corporation of the Church in Ireland w r as a politic 
contrivance for the representation of Soil-Lords "who did not dare to 
reside amongst tenants whose ancestors had been defrauded. Therefore, 
the “ great revolutionary families” sent parsons over to Ireland with 
instructions to teach the Protestant doctrine at the cost of Catholic 
tithe cess. This is the miserable arrangement which the Tories wish 
to protect by the Oath of the Sovereign on her Coronation—not because 
they care for Protestant truth, but because they care for Protestant 
titles and tenures—all of them resting on no better foundation than 
the Act of Confiscation. The thirty-two thousand Lords of the soil are 
very much alarmed lest they may not have a good time of it. They 
have tried smiles and caresses upon the middle classes, and have given 
existence to snobbery to an extent inconsistent with British manliness; 
and they have, with cruelty, cast off their middle-class friends wdien 
their purposes have been served. The aristocracy are capable of fawn¬ 
ing upon the working classes when it serves their purpose, and make 
men, occasionally, “ pleased with a rattle, or tickled with a straw,” 
give up the claim which humanity has upon them. Aristocracy is 
merely a social arrangement founded upon pride, selfishness, and 
cruelty. The aristocrat seeks to live out of the industry, and to be en¬ 
riched by the intellectual capacity, of the people. The lordly ovmer 
of barren acres which cannot be cultivated Avaits the arrival of the pud- 
dler and collier to dig for ironstone and coal, and to pay him the royalty 
which shall enable the feudal lord to “ feast a thousand vassals.” It 
is the fault of the system that men should thus be crushed in order to 
maintain drones in the hive of industry. We have given to lords the 
political powder to found an aristocracy, and the sight of “ the means 
to do ill deeds make ill deeds done.” These men cannot conceive w T liy 
the people of Ireland should not consent to starve, or emigrate, and say 
no more about it. A system so faultless, as a pure faith which no dis¬ 
interested Irishman believes, a cordon of ecclesiastical policemen, in 
aid of mounted police more efficaciously armed still, and special Acts 
of Parliament to execute exceptional laws, appear to aristocracy 
exactly the state of things needed for the institution. It exists by 
selfishness and cruelty, absorbing the gains and taking the profits of 
the labor of the people into the land itself, and aided by the credulity 
and ignorance, which national education only can remove ; so we must 
wait and take justice by instalments. But, for all that, aristocracy is 
doomed, for every ship which takes away a load of emigrants, will some 
day bring back an equal load of passengers to tell us what can be done 
where land is free from evil influences ; and where the men who govern 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


281 


are the men who claim the confidence of their fellow-men, not because 
they are the eldest sons of their fathers, hut because they are wiser and 
more virtuous than men merely horn in the purple. 

Apart from its great political importance, redoubled by the strong 
closing majority of sixty, the debate of this week was a happy intel¬ 
lectual display. It may be said that the good speaking, as far as 
argument went, was on one side; but then the Liberal orators who 
supported the Resolutions differed considerably in tone and style. Mr. 
Roebuck, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Coleridge, and Mr. Lowe agreed only as 
to the main point at issue, and were abundantly diverse in tone and 
illustration. That the Treasury Bench should fare badly in the mere 
debate was not exactly to be expected. They had to defend an old 
institution, connected with much public life, and entwined with many 
of the deepest prejudices of the Nation. _ Such incidents might not 
help a speaker pleading before a judicial tribunal, but they should have 
been great aids in addressing an* assembly where party feeling, and the 
love of combative discussion always run high, and where plausible 
arguments, spiced with bitterness and brought up hot, have an effect 
that they sadly want when served up coldly in the newspapers the next 
day. Yet even when I look at the debate from this point of view,— 
even when I regard it as an intellectual tournament,—I find that the 
Tory orators were not successful; though, on ordinary occcasions, the 
party that counts Mr. Disraeli, Lord Stanley, Mr. Hardy, and Mr. 
Henley cannot be said to be weak in discussion. Lord Stanley is 
usually so effective a speaker that his negative result on Monday was 
very remarkable ; it was probably due to all-sufficient causes. In the 
first place, no one believes that the Foreign Secretary can support the 
Irish 1 Church as it is ; and, though he agreed with his colleagues in 
the plea for more deliberate treatment of the subject, yet he had no¬ 
thing to say in defence of the institution to which many of them are 
passionately attached. This naturally had a refrigerating effect, both 
on the orator and his audience. A secondary effect was that the speech 
did not deal with the actual debate : it might have told as an essay on 
the Resolutions alone ; but it was singularly out of place as an answer 
to Mr. Gladstone’s opening address._ The effect was unhappy; and 
Mr. Lowe, with great wit, compared it to those Bosphorus guns built 
into a wall, that will destroy a ship which stands exactly opposite to them, 
but cannot be moved up or down, or turned aside, and that bombard 
the air if the enemy makes the least move. Had Mr. Gladstone made 
no speech to explain his Resolutions, the arguments would have hit 
the mark; but the enemy moved, and Loid Stanlei abstained from 
shifting liis guns or taking the new range of his foe. ^Tliat the Foreign 
Secretary did not defend the Church provoked Mr. Moncrieff to wit; 
he said that Lord Stanley simply echoed Mr. Disraeli —“ with a 
difference ;” for when the Premier called out “No surrender,” his 
colleague gave back the last word, and we had “ Surrender” as the cry. 
The debate of Monday closed with Lord Cranborne’s acid oratory ; it 
tickled the House, especially when “ I cannot forget last year” implied 
an invective in a few words ; but it added nothing to the debate as a 
war of arguments, nor did it supply any of those touches of humor or 
piquant sarcasm which lighten or ornament a speech. Lord Cran- 
borne seems to detest Mr. Disraeli, but he has no other qualification 
for sarcastic attack. As regards immediate effect, Mr. Hardy’s speech 
of Tuesday evening was a splendid success ; in fact, the leading Lon- 


232 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


don Reporters say, “We seldom remember an oration that so cordially 
delighted the House.” Lord Stanley’s speech had damped the Tories 
and depressed the Liberals : the one side missed some rallying cry ; 
the other feared that, after all, there might not be a good fierce fight. 
The Home Secretary’s speech dissipated the rival apprehensions, and 
everybody w T as pleased. Quite apart from politics, or statesmanship, 
or wisdom, or after-effect of legislation, the House likes a battle, and a 
staunch politician standing to his guns gives the members intense 
delight. They naturally forget for the moment that hesitation and 
doubt may be quite as manly and honest as unquestioning faith, and 
that to “ avoid extremes” may not be a temporizing policy, but the 
result of earnest and conscientious thought. In the heat of debate, in 
the late hours of the night, when hundreds hang on an effective orator’s 
lips, such considerations would spoil the amusement of the evening and 
paralyze the fun of the fight. But Mr. Hardy’s success was not due 
solely to this revival of the rapture of the combat; he showed himself 
to be a most effective antagonist in his quiet way. His castigation of 
Lord Cranborne was not the less severe that it was delivered as if Mr. 
Hardy could not help telling his noble friend some disagreeable truths; 
his quotation from Mr. Gladstone’s letter was telling for the time,— 
though only for the time,—especially when accompanied by the rather 
theatrical pause to allow the leader of the Opposition to deny its authen¬ 
ticity. But, as in the old Greek plays, a good part of the speech was 
the stentorian chorus of the country gentlemen. “ We,” says the 
Dailij Telegraph, “ are staunch Liberals, w T e yield to nobody in w r ell- 
regulated party feeling, and we do not like to admit that Tories are 
better than Liberals in anything ; but we must say that in good cordial 
cheering we never approach the Tory party. Our vital organs maybe 
in the right place, but their lungs are in splendid order. Perhaps it is 
in the hunting-field that these squires get the practice of putting forth 
a volume of sound which can ring and re-echo around the House with 
such power that we almost fear it may tell in the division, and w T e have 
to refresh ourselves by a good long steady stare at the cheerful coun¬ 
tenance of our whip before we can realize that, after all we are a 
majority of the House. We deeply regret this painful inferiority of 
our party. Could not Mr. Glyn take out squads of young members— 
the Irish ought to know something of shouting—and train them, say 
at Richmond Park, opposite Lord Russell's lodge, in good, steady, 
great, jubilant, defiant cheers ? A deal might be done by practice.” 

Mr. Goschen, who followed Mr. Hardy on Tuesday, was singularly 
tame ; but, after a succession of minor speakers, the Attorney-General 
for Ireland excessively amused the House by a speech which, in man¬ 
ner, delivery, and matter, was the joke of the debate. Had Mr. 
Whiteside been in office at present, the Irish Church would have been 
helped to die in the most solemn and effective way: there was a fifty 
funeral-horse grandeur, a kind of fine physical pathos, about that 
exuberant orator of the old school. But Mr. Warren is the funniest 
defender of the faith that even Ireland has ever sent forth: his ap¬ 
pearance, his style, his blunders, his gesture, his oddities, would relieve 
the most melancholy occasion. Irish funerals are frequently occasions 
for mirth, and Mr. Warren kept up the tradition: he “waked” the 
Irish Church in the good old way, and imported unexpected but wel¬ 
come hilarity into a discussion that some persons considered almost 
too grave. The evening closed with one of your speeches. Mr. Bis- 



POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


238 


raeli may be the schoolmaster, but you are the adoptive father of the 
Tory party. You have taken them up paternally, and you aid their 
teacher’s more pedantic work by lessons which rise far above the day 
school of party. Such is the catholicity of the advice which you gave 
the Tories that your harangue had all the effect of a lofty homily, and 
in a manner you “ blessed them unaware.” The debates of Thursday 
and Friday were full of personal interest; nearly every speaker looked 
at the question from his own point of view. Mr. Boebuck declared 
his intention to vote with Mr. Gladstone, but his speech was an odd 
mixture of extreme opinions and queer qualifications. For instance, 
he said “ I am quite ready to disestablish and disendow any Church I 
can lay my hands on.” Yet he afterwards asked, “ Is this a time to 
offend loyal Irish Protestants by disendowing their Church —a ques¬ 
tion that, if it had any force, is always pertinent. He also invented a 
new description of himself as an “Imperial Englishman an auto¬ 
graphic epithet not likely to find favor in any but Mr. Boebuck’s own 
eyes. Mr Henley then interposed with his usual concentrated, and, 
truth to say, coarse common sense. Everybody knows, in his own 
family or circle, old gentlemen, very honest worthy men who speak on 
all topics, even the most ticklish, with a thorough disregard of con¬ 
ventional delicacy, and say what they mean in words rather too plain for 
ladies’ ears. Mr. Henley brings into politics this broad kind of talk, 
and blurts out illustrations much more vigorous than refined. . Since 
the ladies in the gallery can blush unobserved he evidently ignores 
their presence. General Peel, who followed, was happy in two 01 three 
of those epigrams that he can bring forth with such effect. I would 
not shout ‘ No Popery’ outside our churches, but I should always wish 
to see it inscribed inside,” is, though uttered by a Tory, a happy motto 
for men who are at once Liberal in politics and Protestant in cieed. 
Earl Bussell had compared the Liberal party to road-makeis, and. 
General Peel’s remark, that they were rather sign-posts who showed 
the way and never traveled it, was one of those touches that always 
tell in a debate—a hostile metaphor sent back to the foe. Mr. Lowe spoke 
at the dinner-hour ; and though his speech was keenly critical and ap¬ 
parently ingenuous, it was not a success ; it toie the arguments o 
Ministers to tatters; but, after all, that is small work. The great 
power of sarcasm and invective possessed by Mr. Lowe is weakened by 
a certain air of unreserved enmity : he speaks as if he were resolved to 
say anything—well founded or not—that will hurt the feelings of his 
foe. Mr. Osborne was more successful in lightening the debate. _ He 
somewhat surprised his friends by the moderation of his opinions, since 
he did not wish the total disendowment of the Irish Church ; but his 
statistics of the over-manning of the Establishment were comically elec¬ 
tive, especially when in recounting the hierarchy and the clergy of Ins 
own diocese, he began by saying, “ A bishop is kept forme. His quo¬ 
tation from “Bichard III,” describing the hesitating Lord Stanley oi 
that day, was singularly apt. The last night of the debate was opened 
by Mr. Coleridge,' in a speech of remarkable clearness and power, 
beautifully delivered, full of argument and point. In one passage lie 
said with great effect, after a brief reference to past outrages m Ireland, 
“ We do not like to hear these things talked about now; we are abso¬ 
lutely ashamed of them ; but the institution which was their principal 
cause remains in Ireland still.” He was followed by Lord Mayo, 
whose manner is not lively, and who does not relieve his oratory either 


234 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


by epigram or retort, but wlio certainly made tlie very best speech on 
liis side that was made during the debate—the only address, indeed, 
that supplies anything like pleas in mitigation of the extreme sentence 
of the law on the Irish Church; for the address of Mr. Hardy, Mr. 
Henley, and General Peel were defences of all State Churches rather 
than of the Irish Establishment. Mr. Disraeli’s speech was in some 
respects his best, and in some respects his worst. It w T as badly con¬ 
nected and too audacious in its paradox; but his biting retorts on Lord 
Cranborne and Mr. Lowe were full of his old fire, and there w^ere 
touches of his fierce word-combat style in it that on the hustings might 
have some effect. Lord Cranborne is supposed to be the Quarterly 
reviewer who has more than once attacked Mr. Disraeli ; and in 
applying to the noble lord the parenthesis,—“ I do not know whe¬ 
ther he wrote the articles while I was his colleague,” the Prime 
Minister conveyed a keen insinuation that few men could hear 
•without wincing. The cool, easy tone of his reply wns also kept 
up in his declaration that Lord Cranborne’s invective “wanted 
finish,” and that his “only” objection to it w r as that “the bark” on 
one side produced from the other such “ a chorus of reciprocal malig¬ 
nity.” Mr. Lowe emerging, “not from his cave, but from a more 
cynical habitation,” and “ wailing his monotonous melody to the moon,” 
is a picture in Mr. Disraeli’s earlier and effective style. The truth is 
that no man in the House gets the better of the present Premier in 
personal encounter. He is not sensitive—others are ; and it is rather 
an advantage to him when he diverts the House from that considera¬ 
tion of principles of legislation and statesmanlike policy in which, as 
the leader of a minority, he cannot have any party strength. The best 
way of meeting Mr. Disraeli is as Mr. Gladstone did on Friday night, 
merely to note his assertions and leave them to answer themselves. 
Nor can the Liberals regret that in their leader's tw T o speeches—that 
which opened and that which closed the debate—they had nothing but 
the grave expostulation and calm argumentation which so well become 
an earnest Statesman undertaking a great task. 

The stagnant waters of political corruption have at length been 
thoroughly stirred, and new blossoms of progressive promise begin to 
appear on the political hedges of the Nation. I am delighted to 
observe that the Liberals in the House of the Common men have at 
last recovered their patriotic spirits, and that their noble leader is just 
where he ought to be, at the head of a great and united majority. 
Mr. Gladstone, certainly, has not made a factious move, for the 
Ministry have not resigned, and, therefore, they do not regard it in 
that light. The House of the Common men has affirmed a principle 
with regard to the Anglican Church in Ireland, and that is all, just 
as last year it affirmed a principle with regard to Parliamentary 
Beform. The most significant and important fact, however, for the 
Ministry to deal with is, that they have now to meet a united Opposi¬ 
tion, and that it is not possible to carry on the business of the Nation 
with a minority. Greater Ministers than Mr. Disraeli have tried to 
do so and failed, and certainly Sir Egbert Peel, if not the Earl of 
Derby, would have resigned, and handed over the affairs of the Go¬ 
vernment to the party opposite. Mr. Disraeli is, of course, the best 
judge of the honor of his party, and it is not for us to complain if he 
lays down a new theory of party ethics, for such a theory can only 
serve the Liberals when their time comes. It is a matter for cordial 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


235 


congratulation to both sides that politicians have at last taken up 
determined positions. There is no mistake as to the temper of either 
side ; both sides are thoroughly in earnest. They not only mean 
every word they say, but Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli know that 
the men who sit behind them mean every word they cheer. If the 
one leader or the other had to arrange a scheme, no matter how clever, 
the Tories would not learn their lesson, nor would the Liberals hesitate 
to follow another leader. The diffusion of knowledge is doing its work 
well. The greatest gain to the Nation is, that the sham liberality and 
spurious political morality of 1807 has been nearly extinguished. 
Leading men in the House of Commons know that they are now the 
representatives of electors who desire the House to act and not merely 
to talk, for of talk, of Resolutions even, we have had enough during 
the last ten years, if not more. For once the House has shown some 
pluck ; it is a good beginning, and the same spirit of activity in thought, 
the same determination to resolve, carried into action, would soon 
alter the character of our legislation, and make legislation, what it is 
not now, an element of progressive improvement. We have got at 
last a Llouse of Commons which is a House in earnest, for it recog¬ 
nizes the implacable spirit of the people for progress. Once more the 
Constitution is in working order, because two great parties are fairly in 
competition for the honors of the State, and the responsibilities of 
administration. They do not disguise their plan of action,—aggres¬ 
sion and resistance to change,—and it ought always to be so, for, when 
a sickly spirit of compromise comes over either party, Ministers 
descend to the level of clerks, and the House of Commons is degraded 
to the position of a vestry, great in details, infinitesimal in principle. 
The House, at last, has got out of the narrow ruts dug by lialf-minded 
men, and the contest even in the moribund Parliament is fixed to take 
effect without even a thought of the moribund constituencies. It is 
curious, however, to notice how little men in the upper classes have 
comprehended the tremendous change which lias taken place during 
the last fourteen months, for they come before the people to patter 
about the old cries, just as if the people will not ask for something 
more than old cries that have served popularity-hunters in the Liberal 
ranks so long. The Candidates who come before popular constituencies 
must have something now to say, for it is a mere matter of course 
about the redistribution of seats, the ballot, the opening of the Uni¬ 
versity Fellowships, free trade, and non-intervention. What we ought 
to have now is a clear programme as to taxation, imperial and local, 
its redistribution over realized property and industry, for industry 
now pays all; a clear proposal as to dwellings for the poor, so that 
they may neither be overcrowded nor overcharged ; also upon National 
Education, not to be paid by rates upon industry, but by a resumption 
of endowments intended for the poor, which are enough and to spare 
for the purpose. We shall get fast enough to great party issues, but 
questions like these can be dealt with by men in the spirit of patriots, 
and the sooner Liberals begin to think of the social programme that 
must soon follow the Reform Act and the Irish Church Resolutions 
the better. We are yet a long way off a great result to the people at 
large, but industry, integrity, and civil courage, such as you have 
always manifested, will carry us forward very fast, in ameliorating 
the condition of the Nation. 

It is impossible to regard the Irish Church question as subordinate 


236 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


to any other now before the country. It is, in fact, the great cardinal 
question of the day, and the Parliamentary Government wall he dis¬ 
graced if it allows a Cabinet, hopelessly wrong on such a matter, to 
retain power one moment longer than public convenience demands. 
Who should replace them if they are compelled to resign ? If Mr. 
Disraeli shall be compelled to walk out, who shall walk in ? If the 
Resolutions are carried, a Bill will have to be passed through both 
Houses, and the House of Lords may reject it. I have observed that 
the House of Lords has been rather ominously silent on the subject. 
Will the legislation of the Commons be defeated in the Upper House ? 
It is needful in the meantime that Mr. Gladstone, with your and Mr. 
Mill’s assistance, should hold in his hand his great majority; for the 
Peers, who would respect so large a force, might act with supreme 
indifference to a small one. To superficial observers, the rapidity 
with which the House of Commons has been persuaded to change its 
tactics on the Irish Church matters, appears strange and startling, 
but the influence of the Liberal Press ,—of special publications in parti¬ 
cular ,—for a considerable time back, had prepared it for the change. 
Mr. Disraeli is palpably playing false, and the Tories see it, and wince 
under a leadership which they despise, but do not know how to throw 
off. Under such circumstances there must be a serious split before long. 
Mr. Gladstone may not yet see his way to follow yourself and Mr. 
Mill upon the Irish land question, but he ought to abstain from join¬ 
ing any Government pledged to go wrong or to restrict him on this 
subject. The Tory hatred of Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Mill, and yourself, 
is naturally j>rovoked by your combined ability and zeal as Reformers. 
You have all outgrown the shilly-shally of common-place politicians, 
and that is an unpardonable offence with those who have not the same 
faculty of progress. Some are jealous of your commanding talents, 
and more dislike your noble disposition to deal earnestly with public 
life. The Irish Church question now stands first in the order of settle¬ 
ment. Further debates during the present Session can only prepare 
the way for measures which the next Parliament must consider and 
approve. It is to be hoped that the late division, in which the influence 
of public opinion upon the Liberal party is plainly recognized, will 
have the effect of reconsolidating the Liberal party. The objections 
that have been made to Mr. Gladstone, and the desire to thwart him, 
will drop to the ground in proportion as the people show their deter¬ 
mination not to be trifled with. The Irish Church business has passed 
the debatable stage. The people at large know its real nature. They 
have considered it long enough, and feel that the time for action has 
arrived. The House of Commons now understands this state of the 
public mind and submits to its decision. Disestablishment and Dis- 
endowment in Ireland may become a precedent for disestablishment 
and disendowment in England and Scotland. Public opinion would 
seem to be favorable to the disestablishment of the Church in Ireland; 
and the great Parliamentary majority is a pledge that Justice shall 
soon be done. A great wrong is to be righted, and a source of Na¬ 
tional weakness and disunion is to be stopped up. The disestablishment 
and disendowment of the Church in Ireland must be recommended as 
one of the principal means of removing a perpetual source of discon¬ 
tent and reconciling the Irish Roman Catholics to the connexion of 
the two countries. The existence of a State Church in opposition to 
the moral convictions of a vast majority of the Irish people is a 


237 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 

giie\ance which, every impartial observer admits, and it is from this 
conviction in the minds oi the Protestant people that Mr. Gladstone 
derived the strength so apparent in the recent division. English and 
Scottish Protestants have no wish to be unjust to Irish Roman Ca¬ 
tholics. Prepared to rejoice in your inevitable elevation to office, and 
delighted with your continued appearance as Mr. Gladstone’s principal 
colleague, 

I am, dear Sir, your sincere admirer and fellow-laborer in the 
cause of human improvement, 

John Scott. 


LETTER XIV. 


The Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone. 


59, Victoria Terrace, Belfast, 
April Qth, 1868. 


Lear Sir,— Considering that you were reared in the very hotbed 
of religious bigotry, that you were introduced to public life under the 
auspices of the most inveterate political re-actionists, and that your 
most intimate friends are Tories of the deepest dye, or aristocrats of 
the most exclusive caste, your liberality, though very far from being as 
advanced as the requirements of the age and country, is, at the same¬ 
time, really marvelous, and such as to prove, beyond the possibility of 
cavil, that your Intellectual Faculties and Moral Sentiments are of a 
very high and healthy order, and that your sympathies beat in unison 
with the sympathies of your most intelligent fellow-countrymen in 
their aspirations for a higher and a nobler social and political condition 
of things than that existing in Britain at the present moment. If your 
mental constitution had been of the small contracted order of the 
Gathorne Hardy stamp, you would to the end of your physical life, 
have continued the sectarian bigot and the political re-actionist which 
you were at the beginning of your career. But having an eye which 
could see the signs of the times, a mind which could learn from the 
teachings of experience, and moral sentiments which could sympathize 
with the sufferings of the oppressed and impoverished millions,—your 
comprehending and understanding powers gradually grew, until at 
length they hurst almost every one of the intellectual fetters with which 
your benign Alma Mater had thought to stunt your mental stature 
down to the orthodox and safe dimensions of genteel mediocrity. You 
happily had the good sense to learn, shortly after your entrance into 
public life, that all the wisdom in the universe was not monopolized 
by the austere sectaries and pompous pedants who had been the guides 
and instructors of your youth. You found out that there was a vast 
ocean of true ideas outside the snug, priestly, and lordly fishpond 
which you had been taught to regard as the reservoir of all human 
knowledge. You read the history of your country, and you made the 
startling discovery that, if British Statesmanship had been guided by 
the teachings of the two great English Universities, the British people 
of the present day would have no more religious, political, or intellectual 
freedom than the Spaniards under Queen Isabella, the Austrians under 
Francis Joseph, or the Neapolitans under King Bomba. You were, I 
am certain, astounded, and doubtless disgusted, to find that Oxford and 
Cambridge Universities, in their corporate capacities, had always taught 



238 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


that Kings were to be passively and meekly obeyed under all circum¬ 
stances, no matter how revolting to humanity their commands might 
be; that the people, however grievously oppressed, had no right to 
rebel against their anointed monarch, and that if they did rebel, they 
deserved to be hanged and quartered in this world, and were certain to 
be everlastingly damned in the next; that heretics, if they refused to 
become members of the State Church, ought to be burnt, or beheaded, 
or hanged, or otherwise sent out of the way; that free speaking or 
writing ought not to be permitted; that religious dissenters ought not 
to be tolerated ; that unless education were to be under the absolute 
control of the priest, it were better that the people should continue in 
ignorance; that the working classes had no right to political power ; 
and that the Monarchs, the artificial Nobles, and the Soil-Lords of 
Britain had a perfect right to pass and maintain Corn Laws for keeping 
up the rents of the Land-Lords, and for keeping the people always on 
the verge of starvation. These, and such as these, w r ere the political 
doctrines of the great Universities in Britain ; and if the Legislation 
and Government of the Nation are not now based and shaped upon 
such teachings, it is because the poor, downtrodden, and hard-working 
people of these realms have been indefinitely wiser in all political and 
religious matters than their hereditary rulers or their reverend and 
learned instructors. But, as I have already said, your great mind has 
triumphed over the bigotry of your early instructors, and yon are at 
this moment the head of the Liberal Party in Parliament, and one of 
the most advanced political thinkers of the day. Your recent speeches 
to your constituents clearly prove this. But they prove more than this. 
They also prove that you are one of the most honest and courageous 
of our public men. In the midst of a shameful public panic, when 
Statesmen and public journalists were advocating the suspension of the 
Habeas Corpus Act in England and Scotland, when the whole Irish 
people were charged with murderous proclivities, and when the slightest 
word against the Irish State Church, Irish Absenteeism, or Irish Soil- 
Lord wholesale evictions or extermination of the people, is construed 
into a treasonable offence, and into a sympathy with murderers and 
assassins, you were bold and brave enough to proclaim that the Irish 
people had grievous wrongs to complain of, and that British Statesmen 
ought not to delay setting about the redress of these wrongs, because of 
the recent Fenian outrages. Now, I repeat that, however backward 
you may be on such points as University and Church Reform in Eng¬ 
land,—though you are not up to the mark on the Ballot, or even on the 
Church-rate question,—though you are in favor of increasing the num¬ 
ber of bishops, and cherish a strong dislike, almost amounting to a horror, 
of Dr. Colenso’s fearless handling of the so-called five books of 
Moses,—though you still believe in Sir Robert Peel’s ridiculous and 
mischievous currency system,—you are, for all this, one of the most 
honest, courageous, and advanced of British Statesmen. Therefore, 
the genuine Liberals of the British Empire must look to you as their 
leader in the House of the Common men. You are unquestionably 
honest and earnest, but you want backing-up by the people. You are 
incessantly exposed to social influences of the most deleterious kind. 
All that aristocratic wealth and favor, and refinement of manners can 
do to win you from the service of political progress, and enlist you once 
more on the side of religious intolerance and political iniquity, are now 
being done. Therefore, the people must support you in your new resolve 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


239 


to disestablish the Irish Protestant State Church,—to put all the religious 
sects in Ireland upon an equal footing, and to convince the Irish people 
that they are no longer regarded as an alien or conquered race by the 
Statesmen or people of England and Scotland. Another cause why 
you should be unanimously supported by the people is, that there is 
still a probability that unless the Liberals grapple manfully and vic¬ 
toriously with this Irish question, Mr. Disraeli, when he has “educated” 
his “ stupid party” up to the mark, will take it in hand and settle it in 
a manner unsatisfactory to the great body of the people. Mr. Disraeli, 
in his speech, purposely dropped a phrase which paves the way to a 
future apostacy. “ I am not,” he said, “prepared to believe that the 
Irish Church will always remain in its present position.” In other 
words, he is prepared, when the first opportunity presents itself, to deal 
with the Irish Church as he has dealt with the Beform question,—make 
its disestablishment a Tory measure, and thus take the wind out of 
your sails, and ensure for himself and his party another spell of office. 
But the question is one for the people, rather than for any of the 
Leaders of the rival political factions ; and unless the working classes 
of England and Scotland make up their minds to cease paying for the 
Government of Ireland in the interests of the Irish Soil-Lords, nothing 
that either yourself or Mr. Disraeli will do can materially benefit the 
Irish people, or remove from Britain a reproach as black as any that 
ever stained the character of a Christian Nation. 

The Tories and their journals do not think that the Established 
Protestant Church,—the Church of the principal Soil-Lords and of 
about lialf-a-million of people, forced upon five millions of Boman 
Catholics,—is a grievance at all; or if it be, that it is one worth 
making any fuss about. But, to illustrate the character of this 
grievance, let me suppose, however, that the people of England and 
Scotland had been subjected to a similar grievance. Let me sup¬ 
pose (and the supposition is certainly not beyond the possibilities of 
national destiny) that France, or say a confederacy of the Catholic 
Nations of Europe, had conquered Britain, and forced the Boman 
Catholic Creed at the point of the sword upon the Protestant people 
of England and Scotland. Let me suppose, further, that English and 
Scottish Protestants,—as w T e are all satisfied would be the case,—were 
to make a determined stand against such execrable tyranny, and con¬ 
vince their oppressors that they "were resolved to shed the last drop in 
their veins rather than abandon the faith of their fathers and mothers 
for the sake of that which they believed to be a false and idolatrous 
religion. I may yet further suppose our possible Boman Catholic 
conquerors taking a cold-blooded politician s view oi the situation, 
and saying to the down-trodden and desperate Protestants, Well, 
never mind for the present. We are not very anxious that you should 
become Catholics. Indeed, so long as you obey our purely secular 
laws, and pay whatever taxes we may think proper to impose on you, 
we will not be particular about your religion. If, tlieiefoie, you will 
only consent to pay our bishops and priests the salaries which we 
intend to allot them,' you may profess any form of worship you like 
best, and support or starve your own religious instructors as you best 
can.” Now, for the sake of argument, let me still further suppose 
that the Protestants of England and Scotland, enfeebled and exhausted 
by their long and heroic struggle in defence of their liberties, were to 
a fr ree to this compromise,—Would it, therefore, follow that neither 


240 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


they nor their children would have the right at any future time to 
abolish an Establishment to which they did not belong, which they 
believed to be false in its teachings, and which they knew 7 to be tyran¬ 
nical in its sympathies, cruel, rapacious, and remorseless in the en¬ 
forcement of its temporal rights ? The Protestants, when they "were 
weak and helpless, or incapable of effectual resistance, submitted to 
the Establishment of a Church*which they detested, both on account 
of its theological dogmas and its political associations and influences. 
Therefore, according to the Logic of the Tories and their journals, the 
Protestants, however strong in numbers, resources, and organization, 
have no right to quarrel with the iniquitous arrangement, to which, in 
the day of their weakness and humiliation, their forefathers had sub¬ 
mitted. Carried to its legitimate issues, the teachings of the Tories, 
and of the ruling class organs, amounts to this. If one generation 
submits to a wrong, all succeeding generations are bound to yield a 
similar submission ; once a political slave, always a political slave ; 
Royal tyranny, aristocratic scoundrelism, social and political crime, if 
once they have received the sanction of law, ought to be allowed to 
exist throughout all duration. The reply to such monstrous fallacies 
will be found in the ordinary intelligence of every honest man. For 
myself, I rejoice to believe that on this Irish question the Tories and 
their organs do not represent the opinions and convictions of the 
people of England and Scotland. If they did, I should despair not 
only of the present, but of the future of our Nation; for a Nation 
imbued with sentiments so idiotic, and, at the same time, so fiendish, 
would be a standing universal nuisance and peril, which all that is 
estimable in humanity would be interested in abating or removing 
from the world, encumbered and polluted by its pestiferous existence. 
On this great and vital Irish question, Mr. Bright and not Mr. Dis¬ 
raeli, represents the public opinion of England and Scotland. In his 
admirable speech delivered recently at Rochdale, the Member for 
Birmingham gave expression to the following truly wise and thoroughly 
patriotic thoughts:—“The great preserver of peace in Ireland has 
been the gallows and the gibbet. Of late years the barbarity of the 
law has but rarely exhibited itself; but in former years the number of 
persons who suffered death by the law in Ireland was something 'won¬ 
derful, and appalling to think of. Now, twenty years ago, many of 
you will recollect that in Ireland, under the guidance of one of Ireland’s 
greatest sons, the late Mr. O’Connell, there were held meetings of 
vast numbers of the people, equal probably in number to the meetings 
that were held a year ago in Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Glas¬ 
gow, and London. Those meetings were held to condemn certain 
things that were evil in Ireland ; to demand remedies ; to complain 
even that there should be a legislative union between the two countries, 
for they thought that only an Irish Parliament could abolish the 
miseries of Ireland. But there is not one of you that can point to any 
single or great measure of Justice which was given to Ireland in con¬ 
sequence of those great meetings. They were on the other side of the 
Channel. They did not frighten Lord Derby like the meetings of last 
year. They were not so near home, and the Government in London 
always knew that they could count upon the power of Great Britain 
to prevent any great mischief being done across the Channel. The 
grievances were not remedied, the demands of the people were not 
conceded. Nothing had been done in Ireland except under the in- 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


241 


fluence of terror.” It is painful, and even frightful, to think that the 
terrors of atrocities may he more potent to compel the attention of our 
hereditary rulers to Irish grievances than the most forcible and cogent 
arguments, when nothing more terrible than moral suasion is employed 
to press them home. Such, however, I fear is the case. The political 
intelligence of the people has, however, to some extent, penetrated the 
thick incrustations of barbarous prejudices and sordid considerations 
that protect the brains of our hereditary masters from the civilizing 
ideas of the age. Aristocratic ignorance has been slightly leavened 
with popular intelligence. British rulers are being gradually converted 
to Political Science, and the leaders of a Christian Nation are no 
longer open to the charge of being altogether ignorant of, or hostile to, 
some of the plainest and most imperative requirements of the Christian 
religion. The knowledge of this most gratifying fact, I obtained from 
the Irish debate,—the only compensation for the loss of time which it 
caused,—the enormous outpouring of aristocratic twaddle, prejudice, 
and bigotry which marked its course. The most remarkable and 
gratifying result of this Parliamentary display is your clear conversion 
to the view, respecting the Irish State Church, held and avowed by 
every intelligent honest man who had ever studied the question. In 
your able speech on Monday night (March 16) you emphatically de¬ 
clared that you w T ere for “disestablishing” the Irish Protestant 
Church,—that this Church existed in Ireland as the “ last symbol of 
conquest wdiere it is regarded as a public scandal.” “ That Church,” 
you went on to say, “must cease to exist.” This sentiment you re¬ 
peated over and over again, hi slightly varied phraseology and with 
ever-increasing emphasis, till the end of your long and memorable 
speech. Mr. Disraeli’s reply was one of the cleverest, and at the 
same time most contemptible, retorts that ever issu d from the lips of 
that glittering charlatan. As a mere verbal or jocular rejoinder, it 
is entitled to the highest praise. It provoked laughter from both 
sides of the House, and affords conclusive proof that Mr. Disraeli as 
Prime Minister can be as flippant, sarcastic, and unscrupulous, as Mr. 
Disraeli the friendless and universally contemned adventurer. But 
looked at as the manifesto of the first official Statesman of the greatest 
Empire in the world, respecting one of the most momentous tasks 
that ever tried the capacity of a Government, it may be safely affirmed 
that a more contemptible speech was never uttered in the House of the 
Common men. The Prime Minister’s treatment of the Irish question is 
analagous to that of a physician jesting and dancing at the bed-side of a 
tortured and apparently dying patient. The frightful condition of the 
Irish people, he treated as a huge practical joke “got up” by yourself 
and the Liberal Party for the annoyance of the Tory Cabinet. He virtu¬ 
ally denied that there is anything in the present state of Ireland calling 
for special legislation ; and the paltry offers of a “ Catholic University,” 
an inquiry into the “ Land question,” and the “ Irish Railways,” he 
referred to as concessions to the clamorous demands of unpiincipled 
factions, rather than as remedial measures required to arrest the final 
dissolution of a rapidly decaying Nation. That the I rime Minister of 
the British Empire should treat the condition of Ireland question as a 
capital joke,—as a broad target set up for the reception of his epigram¬ 
matic shafts,—was such an outrage on propriety, that even foieign 
journalists, not remarkable for solemnity of manner or seriousness of 
disposition, cried ii shame upon the spectacle 2 Even the I rench journal- 


242 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


ists, who are as much inclined to badinage as any in the world, were 
amazed to find the Prime Minister of the British Empire treating the 
Irish question as if it were a capital joke, and a British House of 
Common men thrown into convulsions of laughter at the fun extracted 
from the complaints and miseries of five millions of people. In short, 
according to the Prime Minister, Ireland wants nothing hut to be “let 
alone.” In this blessed Isle of the West” everything is “ all serene,” 
if only the Liberals would be quiet, and the few foreign emissaries of 
sedition, called Fenians, were all “ bagged” and disposed of by the 
Lord Lieutenant and his subordinates. Still, out of then* overflowing 
goodness of intentions, the Queen’s Ministers were prepared to found 
and endow another “ Sectarian University,” to inquire into the “Land 
question, and if Parliament will let them have the money, to buy up 
the “ Irish Railways,”—if only the Liberal party will let Mr. Disraeli 
enjoy the honors and rewards of office. And this, judging from his 
speech, is all that Mr. Disraeli and his party are prepared to do for the 
solution of the Irish problem. They will not patiently listen to any 
proposal which has for its object the disestablishment of the Irish 
Protestant Church. That last symbol of the conquest and political 
slavery of a noble race, Mr. Disraeli, in his new role of Premier, re¬ 
gards with profound veneration. True, when a mere member of Par¬ 
liament, he spoke of that ecclesiastical establishment as an “ alien 
Church,” as a reproach to British Statesmanship, and a perennial 
fountain of Irish disaffection. That, however, was when he sat 
below the gangway, when he was privileged to indulge a heedless 
rhetoric, and he had an object in alarming the stupid squires and vapid 
peers, whose sordid fears and disgusting prejudices have formed the 
ladder by which he has climbed to the highest office which a British 
citizen can occupy. Now, however, that Mr. Disraeli, through his 
own unscrupulous adroitness, and the dearth of aristocratic brains, is 
Prime Minister of the British Empire, he professes to look upon the 
Irish State Church as a sacred institution, which it would be a heinous 
crime and a great blunder to disestablish. The fact is, that for the 
present the Tories are not disposed to be led or driven any further in 
that path of Liberalism in which, during the last two years, that 
accomplished bullock driver has kept them moving. The Tories will 
sacrifice a good deal in the shape of professed principles and traditional 
party policy for the pleasure of handling seventy millions annually of 
the people’s money, and the proud position of governing an Empire on 
which the Sun never sets. But though prepared to give much, they 
will not give everything. There is a price which they will not just 
now pay for office. They draw the line of concession at the Irish 
State Church. Rather than touch with a hostile hand this famous 
Tory nursery of religious hatred, social bitterness, and political danger, 
they will retire to the cold shades of the Opposition, and see their 
rivals installed in the fat and pleasant offices of Downing Street. Mr. 
Disraeli knows this, and this accounts for his flippant and insolent 
reply to you on Monday night, March 16. This speech was the Prime 
Minister’s offering to the mighty power which has raised him to his 
exalted position. It was a concession to aristocratic interests, not the 
expression of Mr. Disraeli’s conviction. Such as it is, however, for 
the present it binds him to a do-nothing, if not to a re-actionary policy. 
Neither Ireland, nor England, nor Scotland has, for some time to come 
at least, anything further in the shape of very important Liberal legis- 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


243 


lation to expect from Mr. Disraeli and liis herd of small-brained fol¬ 
lowers. But it is comfortable to remember that the real initiative to 
Liberal Legislation is now given out-of-doors, on the platform or 
through the Press. No great Political Beform of recent times has been 
commenced in the House of the Common men. Newspaper writers 
and political agitators stir the great national questions that after a time 
knock at the door of the people’s House, and which are subsequently 
taken up by some courageous earnest working member, or by the 
leading Minister of the day. 

Although as far as immediate beneficial legislative results are con¬ 
cerned, the great Irish debate may be said to have terminated nearly 
in smoke, yet the wordy darkness was slightly illumed by fitful gleams 
of light, which redeem British Statesmanship from that charge of 
utter mental blindness and groping in the dark, to which, on most 
great political questions it is justly open. The sound and fury of the 
combatants did really signify something. The pillar of cloud had a 
fiery, and even a radiant, side to it. When I wade through the recent 
Irish debate in the House of the Common men, I can see very little of 
a hopeful or of an encouraging nature therein. The majority of the 
Statesmen and speakers that have addressed themselves to the public 
know well enough the principal remedies for Irish distress and discon¬ 
tent, but her Majesty’s Government have as yet offered nothing but 
dreary statistics, and scarcely so much as a distinct “ promise to pay. 
In the opinion of the civilized world, in the mouths of all just and 
enlightened men, abroad as well as at home, Britain stands arraigned 
for not having done nearly enough to be “ in the right” as regards the 
unhappy country whose sighs break the peace of Europe. In the course 
of a very few sentences you gave promise of an earnest speech, which 
you went on to keep with every word. The House was now roused 
thoroughly from lethargy; it rang with excitement and assent when 
you scourged the small theory of the Irish Secretary. The cheers re¬ 
doubled when you approached the main topic of the debate, and repudi¬ 
ated the idea that the Church of England would be endangered if justice 
would be applied to the Church in Ireland. The Church in England 
you said, must not trust to outworks in countries where the presence .of 
those outworks is a tyranny; it must trust to its own merits and \ii- 
tues, and live where it has a right to live by its manifest vitality. Re¬ 
pudiating w ith scorn the proposition of issuing a Commission to see 
what is wrong about the Irish Church, when what is wrong is simply 
that it exists at all as a Government Corporation, you declared in 
earnest tones that “ The Irish State Church must cease to exist." A burst 
of energetic cheering broke forth, and rang the knell of the last great 
badge of conquest and ascendancy in Ireland, of which these few words 
will be recorded as the sentence. The debate was instantly relieved 
from its character of sterile eloquence by the clear and certain manifes¬ 
tation of a Liberal policy; and while you demanded “religious 
equality,” you explained what you meant by it. You meant by dis¬ 
establishment the putting a legal end to the existence of the State 
Church in Ireland ; and at this renewed definition the aspect of the 
Protestant squires was most touching to watch. They listened like 
prisoners at a condemned sermon. Nevertheless, cheers with a new 
and “ fighting” ring resounded when you said that, unless the Piemier, 
as he sometimes did, expanded the useless programme of his Irish 
Secretary, it would be the stern duty and necessary course of the 

Q 


244 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


Opposition to propose and carry into action, if obliged, a comprehen¬ 
sive scheme to do absolute justice,—in deeds, not in words,—to 
wronged Ireland; for “when the case is ripe, and when the hour is 
come, justice delayed is justice denied.” 

It is really no exaggeration to say that, a century since, a Roman 
Catholic was born a political and social serf. It has taken nearly one 
hundred years to persuade the English and Scotch people that the 
majority of the Irish Nation were not born for personal, social, or 
political subjugation. It has taken nearly one hundred years to strike 
off, link by link, the old chains. When the oppressed millions made 
any new protest against some remnant of the “ system of restraint,” 
English and Scotch Protestants haughtily asked, “ Will this people 
never be content ?” “ Are we to grant them concession upon con¬ 

cession ?” And then another fetter w T as sulkily removed. The late 
Mr. O'Connell lived to see Catholic Emancipation and Municipal 
Reform granted, though his crusade against tithes signally failed ; and 
the compromise of 1838, as he predicted, gave a new lease of life to 
the old injustice. But the spirit which he roused did not slumber in 
his grave. The grand popular agitation that preceded 1829, and 
survived Emancipation, did more than merely thunder at the gates of 
Parliament for the admission of Roman Catholics : it roused the sense 
of Justice of English and Scotch Statesmen to the iniquity of the 
Irish Church ; and you will be merely the executor of an old Whig will. 
If we take up the political debates from 1829 to 1838, we shall find 
that denunciation of the Irish Church had become a vigorous common- 
place of English Liberalism, and a debate in 1835 or 1836 might 
almost be reprinted in 1868 as germane to the topics of our own time. 
That Emancipation was a blessing to Ireland w r e now see more clearly 
than ever ; but the boon was somewhat marred by the manner of 
granting it. When Peel carried the Repeal of the Corn Laws he won 
the affections of the people by his most generous ascription of merit 
to the “ unadorned eloquence” of Richard Cobden. But when he had 
assented to Emancipation there had been no such reconciliation be¬ 
tween the Irish Cobden and his antagonist. And the Tories, although 
they sullenly admitted the eligibility of Catholics for Parliament and 
for high offices, had but an imperfect idea of willingly investing them 
with official power. Above all, their hatred of O’Connell was still 
unquenched. They had learned their lesson, but they hated the 
teacher. The result was proportionately mischievous. A measure 
that might have been hailed as a boon was only the signal for renewed 
political agitation and agrarian strife. When Lord Mulgrave came 
to Ireland a few years afterwards, he tried to make Catholic Emanci¬ 
pation a fact by calling Roman Catholics to posts of dignity and power; 
but his action served only to evoke an Orange howl, cordially re-echoed 
by the Tories. The Whigs were driven from power, and then com¬ 
menced a renewed agitation of the most embarrassing kind—checked 
in 1844 by O’Connell’s imprisonment, but revived in a more dangerous 
form by Young Ireland in 1848; checked again, to re-appear once 
more in secret societies, in wicked agrarian outrages, and wild agrarian 
demands. The Emancipation Act of 1829 might have been made a 
final Act for the establishment of religious equality ; but Toryism then 
had neither the courage to resist, nor the Statesmanship to be generous 
in its grants. What has been lost in completing the pacific conquest ? 
Nearly forty years only ! Something more. During that time there 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


245 


have been scattered in Ireland the germs of sedition and secret political 
intrigue. But forty years of Irish discontent and forty years of Eng¬ 
lish indifference have wrought their practical results in the rise of a 
spirit entirely opposed to that which O’Connell taught ; until at last 
we have seen even law-respecting Irishmen who have thanked the 
Fenians for arousing Britain to the study of Irish wrongs. We now 
see how a change of mind has come over the British people, who, 
after reams of remonstrance, argumentation, and satire, are at length 
ashamed of the furious bigotry which enabled Exeter Hall to delay the 
real triumph of O'Connell and Emancipation. 

A huge iniquity defended by imbecility, and ecclesiastical imposture, 
apologized and fought for by an organized hypocrisy,—such is the 
description which, with the strictest conformity to Truth and Justice, 
I must give of the Irish State Church, and the arguments advanced in 
its defence by the Tory Ministers and their adherents in the House of 
the Common men. Anything more lame and impotent than the 
speeches made in vindication, in the course of the recent debate, of 
the collossal vampire of an adulterated Christianity, which for the last 
three centuries has pressed upon the brain, and sucked the life-blood 
of the Irish people, is not to be found in the records of rhetorical 
conflicts. To the numerous facts and arguments adduced by yourself, 
Mr. Bright, and the rest of the Liberals, for the abolition of the Irish 
State Church, neither Lord Stanley, nor Mr. Gathorne Hardy, nor 
any of their party, brought forward a single fact or consideration 
worthy of the slightest notice. As for the so-called facts on which the 
apologists of this hideous and condemned institution relied, they are 
no more than phantoms; and as for their arguments and sophisms, 
they have been examined and exploded a thousand times before. The 
only arguments worthy of any respect in favor of the continued exist¬ 
ence of the alien Church in Ireland, brought forward by the friends of 
that legalized impiety, were the fifth article of the Act of Union 
between Ireland and England, and a clause in the Coronation Oath 
taken by the Queen and all the previous Sovereigns of the House of 
Hanover. In the fifth article of the Act of Union, it is distinctly laid 
down that the Irish Protestant Church shall be maintained in con¬ 
nexion with the State. Of this there can be no doubt; and the 
votaries of the alien Church are entitled to all the advantage which 
can be logically extracted from that document. But, unfortunately for 
them, every article of the Act of Union has been coolly and remorse¬ 
lessly violated when it suited the purpose or the interest of the Irish 
Tories to do so. And it is not until it is proposed to break through 
one of the articles of this infamous Act of Union, in the interest of the 
oppressed Irish people, and for the production of concord and good 
feeling between Ireland and England, that the Tory votaries of the 
religious imposture cry out against the infraction of the Act of Union. 
When the object is to aggrandize absentee Land-Lords, the Act of 
Union may be violated without a single protest against the infraction 
in the House of the Common men; but when the object is to conciliate 
the estranged affections of the people of Ireland, and remove from the 
Empire of the British Isles a source of bitter hatred and rankling 
animosity between millions of men who otherwise would respect and 
love each other, then the frantic howl is raised. Then the Act of 
Union is invoked, and the Irish Church is referred to as the Ark of the 
Almighty’s covenant, which must not so much as be even touched by 


246 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


the profane hands of unconsecrated laymen. Then, as to the clause 
of the Queen’s Coronation Oath, there can he no doubt that in sub¬ 
scribing to that part of the Oath, our worthy sister the Queen swore, 
by everything that is deemed sacred, to defend the archbishops, bishops, 
parsons, and State paid Protestants of Ireland, in the possession of the 
lands, glebes, churches, cathedrals, and other emoluments of the alien 
Church. All this must be conceded. But what then? Does it follow, 
because, in conformity with a barbarous and silly custom, the British 
Queen is made to swear not to do, or consent to do, an act of obvious 
Justice, therefore, it must not be done ? Because the King or Queen is 
compelled to promise to do an absurd or impossible thing, must, there¬ 
fore, the thing be done ? I will take a parallel case. Let me suppose 
that the owner of a large forest, when he comes into possession, finds that 
forest to be the home of a gang of rapacious and blood-thirsty robbers. 
These brigands are well organized and powerful, and they get hold of 
the Land-Lord, and compel him to swear he will not only allow them 
to live in the forest, but defend and assist them in the exercise of their 
immemorial calling,—that of levying contributions on the industrious 
tenants and laborers round about. But by-and-by the long-suffering 
victims of prescriptive plunder become desperate ; and emboldened by 
the co-operation of powerful allies, to rise up against the hereditary 
robbers, fight and defeat them, and are on the eve of extirpating the 
pestiferous vermin, when all on a sudden the hands of the victors are 
stayed by an appeal to the Oath of the Land-Lord. He swore to allow 
the robbers to plunder the peasants and farmers, therefore, the pea¬ 
sants and farmers are to be plundered and pauperized throughout all 
duration. Now, in view of such a contingency as this,—What line of 
action would ordinary intelligence commend to the justly exasperated, 
and all but victorious, peasants and farmers ? Why, this, they would 
say to the Land-Lord, “ Your Oath is not binding upon us, who never 
look it; nor upon yourself, since you cannot keep it. And even if you had 
the power to perform the obligation ivhich it imposes upon you, it is a wicked 
and diabolical Oath, and, therefore, there is less wrong in breaking than 
there is in observing it.” Then, it does not follow that because a man 
may have sworn to defend and maintain a reeking cesspool that has 
been in the family for some generations, the people poisoned by its 
unwholesome emanations are to be perpetually precluded from drying 
or removing this fountain of disease whenever they have the power to 
do so. The fact of our worthy sister the Queen having sworn to defend 
the Irish Church does not prove that the Irish Church ought not to 
be abolished, but only that the Coronation Oath has at least one foolish 
and wicked clause in it. George the Third was constantly pleading 
his Oath against Catholic Emancipation, and he succeeded in prevent¬ 
ing that measure of simple justice during his own lifetime. But Queen 
Victoria is not her own grandfather, and, therefore, she will not be 
guilty of the stupendous folly and wickedness of attempting to pervert 
the mere form of words which she was compelled to repeat at her 
Coronation, into an instrument of injustice to millions of the people 
forming the Nation. Besides, the Queen has not the power to prevent 
the abolition of the Irish State Church ; and as those who only have 
the power have not taken the Oath, and are not disposed to defend the 
alien Church, I know no cause why speedy justice should not be done 
upon this notorious and condemned criminal. 

But the most unmistakable sign of the approaching downfall of the 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


247 


Irish. State Church is to he found in the distracted and mutually 
damaging apologies made by the Tory Ministers on its behalf, or rather 
for the purpose of defeating your design. Lord Stanley, in supporting 
his feeble and disingenuous amendment, did not venture to say that 
Parliament ought not to interfere with the endowments of the Irish 
State Church. On the contrary, he freely admitted that certain 
“ modifications” were imperatively called for, and that the only plea 
for letting it alone just now, is the advanced state of the Session, the 
backward condition of the public legislation that has to be done, and 
the certainty of a general election within a few months. On these 
grounds he pleaded for delay, and deprecated the adoption of your 
Resolutions. Mr. Gathorne Hardy, on the other hand, ‘went in for a 
u No Surrender” policy. He,—narrow-minded, unteacliable Tory that 
he is,—would maintain the Irish State Church at all hazards. He 
actually had the unsurpassed impudence to assert that this Church was 
a benefit to Ireland, and not in the slightest degree hurtful to the 
Roman Catholics, or any other class of people. Now, the best answ T er 
to such audacious mendacities as those of which the Home Secretary 
has made himself the father, is to be found in the incontrovertible, 
statistical, and historical facts of that Church. From these I learn 
that for a population not much, if any, larger than that of Liverpool 
or Glasgow, there are maintained, at the expense of a half-starving 
people, who do not believe in their doctrines or profit by their teach¬ 
ings, not less than twelve bishops, two archbishops, and several 
hundreds of deans, archdeacons, prebendaries, rectors, vicars, curate^, 
&c., &c. I also find that a sum computed at the very least to amount 
to about three quarters of a million annually, the property of the people 
of Ireland, is devoted to the exclusive support of this Sectarian Estab¬ 
lishment. Then, it is more than notorious that this is the Church of the 
excessively rich, maintained at the expense ot the extremely pool, t ie 
gorgeous Church of alien oppressors and absentee Land-Loids, main¬ 
tained out of the half-rewarded industry of a poor, half-famished, and 
bitterly despised people. Is it not a palpable fact, that, nine ou ^ 0 
every ten Irishmen cordially hate this Church as a vehicle of heresy an 
a symbol of political slavery ? Therefore, this Church of the ungrate- 
ful Soil-Lords, the wealth-consuming sluggards, and the horse-leeches 
of Irish labor must and shall be speedily abolished, as the fiist direct 
step towards the discharge of that immense debt which England owes to 
Ireland for seven hundred years of unparalleled oppression, lms is 
now the grand question of the hour. The voice of anxious millions 
proclaimf—Down with the Irish State Church ! The Liberal Press 
repeats the proclamation,—Down with the ecclesiastical harlot, hep 
bv the Irish Soil-Lords, but paid for and pampered by the Irish people ! 
England now acknowledges that slie owes an immense debt to Ireland, 
ancf as a first instalment, Parliament is called upon to make the Irish 
people a present of all the extorted and compulsory endowments of the 
Irish State Church, subject, of course, to adequate salaries for life to 

the present incumbents. . , 

The speech in which you introduced the subject was admirably 

adapted to obtain for you the support of a united party m the House 
of the Common men, and the irresistible help of public opinion and 
public conviction bevond its walls. As ever, firm and conciliatory you 
were found, I believe, to have decided many waverers, and to have 
given fresh courage to the timid, while, at the same time, abatmg hot i 


248 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


the rancor and the terror of Opposition. The picture which you drew 
of what would remain to the Irish State Church after its disestablish¬ 
ment and disendowment, provided that the considerate plan in which 
you mainly concur with Mr. Bright, should be adopted, was well 
adapted to reduce to the lowest point the bitter animosity of reluctant 
Churchmen. The able manner in which you treated the historical 
part of the subject made an evident impression upon the House. A 
few facts illustrative of the very recent formation of new parishes in 
which the Protestants are under ten, while the Catholics are over a 
thousand, demonstrated the justness no less than the expediency of 
your proposal, that operations productive of fresh vested interests 
should at once cease. In fine, after carefully feeling your way through 
all parts of the subject, and looking round upon the House, you felt 
yourself warranted, even before Lord Stanley had opened his lips 
(what could you not have said had you spoken after ?) in saying that 
before you had seen the amendment, you thought the thread of re¬ 
maining life to the State Church in Ireland was short; but since you 
perused the notice, you regarded that thread as shorter still. To the 
verification of this political prophecy Mr. Bright must be held to have 
made a most effective contribution. His great speech was truly 
weighty, and without a single syllable to detract from the pressure by 
sounding a single prejudice. His use of the argument from the influence 
desired at Rome, under the unequal government of Ireland, was at once 
forcible and forbearing. With excellent taste, he admonished those 
who took alarm for the Church in England, that they had far more to 
fear from feuds within than from foes without. It was so, he pointed 
out, as to the disruption in the Church of Scotland ; which, however, 
as the late Lord Aberdeen confessed to him, turned out, contrary to his 
fears, to be a great blessing for the country,—a blessing so great and 
so manifest that many persons thought the Residuary Church would 
one day solicit disestablishment. Instead of twitting the Ministerialists 
with being “ under education,” he threw himself, a fellow-pupil, among 
them, saying, “We all have to learnat the same time giving you a 
fatherly pat as a docile and an apt scholar. Finally, he exhorted the 
whole House not to close either their ears against arguments based 
upon Justice, or their Sentiments against the dictates of Equity. Once 
only did the opposite benches for a moment mistrust him ; but they 
soon discovered their mistake. “Pluck up,” he exclaimed, “this 
weed that pollutes the air.” In an instant the smooth locks of pre¬ 
judice stood upon end. “Nay, more,” added the finished, because 
earnest, orator, without a pause, here is consolation for you in the 
sentence: “there will remain behind, rooted and nourished in the 
soil of devoted minds,—a free Protestant Church, which, disencum¬ 
bered, shall become, perchance, the chief grace and lasting ornament 
of the Island.” The cessation of the Established Church Corporation 
in Ireland from, existence, in the form of a State Establishment, is 
now a grand political necessity. 

Your third Resolution is a fashionable form of homage to the dignity, 
if not to the rights, of the Crown. Much, if not the whole, of the 
power of the Crown is derived from the multitudes of rich appoint¬ 
ments in its gift. Strip the Crown of the whole of its patronage, and 
it will be reduced to a state of well-nigh perfect political impotence. 
But the abolition of the Irish State Church will deprive the Crown of 
a very large and considerable portion of its patronage. Therefore, 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


249 


seeing that the Resolutions contemplate so serious an infraction on 
the Royal influence, it is only a mere matter of courtesy “that an 
humble address should be presented to” (our worthy sister lady) “her 
Majesty, humbly to pray that, with a view to the purpose aforesaid,”— 
namely, the disestablishment of the Irish State Church,—“her Ma¬ 
jesty will be graciously pleased to place at the disposal of Parliament 
her interest in the temporalities of the archbishoprics, bishoprics,” &c., 
of the Irish Church. Under our peculiar form of Government, a large 
amount of “ constitutional” hypocrisy is brought into play whenever 
a just measure of Reform has to be passed, and the Crown is “ humbly 
begged to grant” that which it is well known the Crown has no power 
to refuse. If, therefore, the House of the Common men should adopt 
your Resolutions, it is pretty safe to assume that the Queen will “ place 
at the disposal of Parliament her interest in the temporalities” of the 
Irish State Church. But whether the present moribund and aristo¬ 
cratic members of the House of the Common men agree to your 
Statesman-like proposal or not, there can be no doubt that the doom 
of the Irish State Church is sealed. The sentence has gone forth that 
this pestilential abomination,—this flagrant outrage, in the name of 
Christianity, on the feelings and convictions of a profoundly religious 
people,—must cease to exist. Henceforward the foreign Soil-Lords of 
Ireland must pay their own priests. The poor rack-rented Irish 
tenants must not any longer be plundered for the support of a parcel 
of fat parsons, whose doctrines they disbelieve, whose language many 
of them do not understand, and whose interests are antagonistic to 
those of the ragged and half-starved peasantry on whose industry they 
grew fat, and insolent, and proud. The English and Scottish working 
classes will no longer lend themselves to the diabolical purposes of the 
Irish Soil-Lords. They will no longer send men to Ireland to bayonet 
the hard-working and robbed Irish peasants and mechanics into sub¬ 
mission to a gang of obdurate sensualists, who spend on the pimps 
and prostitutes of foreign lands the gold wrung by legal pains and 
tortures from the toil of a noble, though half-famished, people. Indeed, 
the people of England and Scotland, have no interest in the existence 
of an alien State Church, or in the usurpations and robberies of 
absentee and tyrannical Soil-Lords in Ireland, therefore, they will 
decline to pay for the maintenance of these monstrous and disgusting 
iniquities. The tolerance of this gigantic abomination is one of the 
most astounding, and yet absurd, crimes that ever disgraced any 
Nation. What other Christian country has ever been guilty of the 
stupendous folly,—not to say iniquity,—of maintaining four bishops 
over a district where “ each of the four has less than one in twenty of 
its population belonging to the Established Church ?” This piece of 
statistics I glean from the census returns of 18G1, and though bad and 
shameful enough, it is far from being the most flagrant sample of the 
huge stock of scandalous impieties which constitute the Irish State 
Church:—“ The Bishop of Killaloe, Kilfenora, Clonfert, and Kil- 
macduagli is returned as presiding over 4.71 per cent, of the population; 
the Bishop of Limerick, Ardfert, and Agliadoe, over B.8B per cent, of 
the people; the Bishop of Cashel, Ernly; Waterford, and Lismore, 
over 3.7B per cent, of the inhabitants ; and the Bishop of Tuam, 
Killala, and Achonry, over 3.37 per cent, of the population.” From 
other reliable sources I also learn that there are scores of parishes 
in Ireland in which the only Protestants are the Protestant parson 


250 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF. 


and liis family; and yet many of tliese sinecnrists are in receipt of 
£400, £500, £600, and in some cases £1,000 a year; all of which 
comes out of the pockets of poor men, who look upon the Protestant 
parson as a heretical interloper, appointed and paid to apologize for 
and vindicate the crimes and cruelties of absentee and other alien 
Soil-Lords. No wonder, then, that the Irish people should be deeply 
disaffected, or that all who are just, noble, and enlightened, in Eng¬ 
land and in Scotland should demand that this collossal iniquity of the 
Irish State Church should cease to disgrace our Nation, or cumber 
the beautiful Earth with its existence. Your view evidently is, that, 
considering the particular circumstances of Ireland, there ought not 
to be any preference or priority of religious communions. The dis¬ 
establishment which you propose is absolute and total. The State 
shall ultimately cease to contribute, or to enforce and assist the levy 
of contributions for any denomination whatever. Not merely the 
endowments of the Establishment, but also the grants to the Roman 
Catholics and to the Presbyterians must cease altogether; subject, of 
course, to an ample and liberal provision for life interests, but not one 
farthing of money shall hereafter be raised or collected, under the autho¬ 
rity of the State, for either Churchmen, Romanists, or Presbyterians. 

Your forthcoming elevation to the Premiership over the heads of 
many Whig Peers will be in one sense remarkable, simply because the 
Liberal party, as a rule, have generally an ample supply of ambitious 
noblemen w 7 lio are able and ready to take the first place. The Tories 
have been led by Canning, Peel, Disraeli ; while their Liberal op¬ 
ponents have been ruled by Lords— Grey, Melbourne, Russell, 
Palmerston. Why is this ? Why does the more popular side adopt 
the less popular plan ? Why has a party usually opposed to excessively 
aristocratic privileges selected, as a rule, aristocratic leaders ? It may 
be through personal incidents ; or because Liberalism has in it some 
charm that stimulates to activity men who inherit high rank. Tory 
nobles submit to the leadership of a Plebeian with a consent which springs 
from the essence of their creed; they seem to say, “ What matters it 
who saves us, so that we are effectually saved ?” But wdien a Peer 
becomes a Liberal he so far surrenders any exceptional claim arising 
from his birth. He acts, to some extent, against the old traditions of 
his order; he associates, as a matter of course, with untitled public 
men ; and his Radicalism—for there are Radical Peers—is the result 
of intellectual activity. There is, therefore, always a cluster of young 
artificial nobles contending with middle-class Liberals for high place ; 
while the Tory party—indolent, sleepy, satisfied—is remarkable for its 
large employment of untitled and middle-class politicians. The two 
actual leaders of the new Toryism — Mr. Disraeli and Lord Cairns — 
are notable for nothing but mental power ; and it will be curious to 
trace the effect produced by their union on the tactics of the party. I 
do not think that they can possibly have recourse to more political 
artifices—not to say “ dodges”—than the Tories in recent days ; while 
it is possible that they will not find the bulk of the squires following 
them with such alacrity when they organize forlorn hopes against the 
Liberal citadel. On the Irish Church, Lord Cairns will speak, of course, 
w T ith full knowledge and great authority ; but he must strike out some 
grand new line if he would hope to retain for the already doomed 
Establishment even a portion of its advantages. It is pleasant to 
parties in my position to think that underneath the strong partisanship 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


251 


which the Liberal and Tory leaders display to each other, a warmer 
feeling is to be found. It is impossible that you and Mr. Disraeli can 
do other than admire each other. Men so great are far removed from 
littleness such as we find in the ranks of social and commercial life. 
Politically it is possible for men to hate each other, and yet to be ready 
with a very active sympathy when Nature breaks through the bonds of 
formalism and the etiquette of political life. So it has always been 
noticed that Mr. Diskaeli is never wearied of expressing unstinted 
admiration of Mr. Bright, and that in the midst of his most fiery in¬ 
vectives the great orator of the platform can say a word in favor of 
the leader of the Tories. Were it not for these pleasant memorials of 
a better and more manly character in our intense political strife our 
constitutional system would break down, and one would be disgusted 
with the merely personal contests into which political life would de¬ 
generate. The British people love fair play, and proud as they are to 
see the intellectual giants pelt each other in good style, they are also 
not less pleased to hear that, when the strife is over, the men lately so 
bitterly engaged against each other can sit at the same table and ex¬ 
change the courtesies of civilized life. 

I am, Dear Sir, your faithful friend and co-operator in the Cause 
of Justice. 

John Scott. 


LETTER XV. 

59, Victoria Terrace, Belfast, 
April 6f/t, 1868. 

Professor H. Fawcett, M.P. 

Dear Sir,— I did not, until within a few days ago, think that 
Britain or the world had sustained any serious loss by the retirement 
of the Earl of Derby from public life. Now, however, I am of a dif¬ 
ferent opinion. Ever since the morning of Saturday, the 4th current, 
when the Prime Minister of Britain,—our new Defender of the Faith,— 
quietly pocketed the affront put upon him by an overwhelming majority 
of the House of the Common men, I have been convinced that Britain 
is so poor in honorable Statesmen that we cannot, without serious 
diminution of our moral prestige, part even with so poor a Statesman as 
the Earl of Derby. Had that hot-brained artificial nobleman been Prime 
Minister when the adverse vote of the Commons showed that the public 
have not the slightest confidence in the Tory Government, foreign 
nations would have thought better ol us than they now do. The Earl 
of Derby is too proud a man to stoop to a palpably mean and despic¬ 
able course of conduct. Therefore, if he had found Ins Government 
defeated by a large majority on one of the most important questions 
that ever engaged the attention of Parliament, he would not have lost 
a moment of time in tendering his resignation. But Lord Derby has 
resigned, and Mr. Disraeli reigns in his stead. Now, this brilliant and 
extraordinary gentleman has the most profound contempt, not only for 
the country squires and noodle nobles whom he has subjected to his 
sway but for the Nation whose political Chief he is. Probably he is 
not conscious that his own elevation to his present position is the 
strongest justification of his contempt for the British people that could 
be adduced. For of a verity there must be something wrong and weak 



252 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


in the character of the people whose Prime Minister is a bitter-tongued 
man, who has given incisive expression to the fermenting venom that 
agitates the minds of the inarticulate squires and silly nobles, who 
would reduce Britain to the condition of Austria before the catastrophe 
of Sadowa, or of Naples before Garibaldi overthrew the Bourbon 
tyrant. Yes, Mr. Disraeli despises both his own party and the 
Nation that permits that party to wield its power and manage its 
resources ; therefore, he disdains to comply with these requirements of 
political decency which no other Prime Minister that Britain ever had 
would have dared to disregard. He did not give the slightest hint of 
his intention to resign. He probably has not the least idea of doing 
so. He likes office ; he revels in the golden spoils of the Treasury. 
He has a vivid recollection of the cold and sterile shades of jOpposition. 
He, the daring and successful adventurer, the offshoot of a despised 
race; he, the political aspirant, who had neither wealth, nor family 
influence, nor Court favor to aid him in his upward struggle, enjoys 
the position which makes him the manufacturer of Christian Bishops 
and Peers of the realm, and the dispenser of hundreds of well-paid and 
little-to-do places. We may, therefore, rely upon it that nothing less 
than a formal vote of want of confidence, passed by a large majority, 
will induce Mr. Disraeli to resign. There are some men who, when 
they find themselves comfortably lodged, even though they have no 
right to be in the house, must be either pushed, or kicked, or carried 
out before they leave the place. Mr. Disraeli is one of those cool 
customers, and the Dukes, the Lords, the Barts., and the right honor¬ 
able Gentlemen who serve under him, are evidently content to follow 
their leader through any tortuous or dirty path which he may think 
proper to pursue. 

Here I may remark that the present Ministry is the most truly 
aristocratic that Britain has ever had since the passing of the Reform 
Bill of 1882. There are serving under Mr. Disraeli, no less than four 
Dukes,—namely, the Dukes of Montrose, Marlborough, Richmond, and 
Buckingham, and these artificial noblemen pocket their salaries regularly 
on quarter-day. Now, provided they do the work of the Nation, we do not 
grudge them their pay. The faithful servant, whether he be a member of 
Parliament or the head of a State department, is worthy of his hire. 
But there is no proof that these Dukes do any real work ; and it is most 
certain that beyond their high rank, sonorous titles, family influence, 
and vast wealth, they have no qualification whatever for the well-paid 
offices which they fill. But it is urged by the advocates of aristocratic 
ascendency in political affairs, that the exalted rank and public cha¬ 
racter of these and other artificial noblemen is a guarantee that they 
will be no parties to any mean, or shabby, or glaringly immoral con¬ 
duct in connexion with the Government. But there never was a 
greater mistake. We know that some of the dirtiest transactions that 
ever disgraced a party were perpetrated by artificial noblemen. We 
also know that some of the wealthiest Peers of the realm are addicted 
to meanness in monetary matters to which no high-spirited artizan with 
forty shillings a week would stoop. I am not, therefore, surprised to 
find that the ducal colleagues and subordinates of Mr. Disraeli have 
not resigned, but have resolved to pocket the affront of last Saturday 
morning along with their salaries. Yes ; the Tory Dukes, as well as 
the artificial noblemen who compose the Disraeli ministry are willing 
to remain members of a government condemned by an overwhelming 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


258 


majority of tlie House of tlie Common men, and to pocket the money 
of a people who do not believe either in their political honesty or intel¬ 
lectual capacity. This being the case, it w r ill be the bounden duty of 
the Liberal party, as soon as possible, to propose and carry a formal 
vote of want of confidence in the present Government; and then, in the 
highly probable event of Mr. Disraeli and his ducal tail still resolving 
to disregard the sentence of the House by clinging to office, it may be 
necessary to summon a national conference for the purpose of consider¬ 
ing what means, if any, “ Our great constitution ” has provided for get¬ 
ting rid of a Minister who despises the House of the Common men, 
and hurls defiance in the face of the xieople. In other words, suppos¬ 
ing that Mr. Disraeli, having subsidized and mesmerized the Dukes, 
should take it into his head to elect or constitute himself Prime 
Minister, or perpetual Dictator of Britain,—How can we get rid of his 
usurpation without resorting to physical force ? The question is an 
important one, and I sincerely commend it through your great influence 
to the careful consideration of the very learned gentlemen who are 
constantly discovering some fresh beauty in our matchless constitution. 

“ If the population have the power they may arrest the rulers, and 
bring them to the same judicial trial that would be reserved for the 
individual.” This important principle, although frequently represented 
as seditious, is not only clearly acknowledged, as you are aware, but 
reduced to specific law in Magna Cliarta. The principle is acknowledged, 
although the application of it is restricted to twenty-five Barons ; and 
a reservation is made in favor of the person of the King, Queen, and 
royal children. Chapter xxxviii specifies the manner in which four 
Barons, chosen out of the twenty-five, shall notify any grievance, and 
petition to have it redressed without delay :—“And if it is not redressed 
by us (the King), or if we should happen to be out of the realm, if it 
is not redressed by our Justiciary within forty days, &c., the four Barons 
aforesaid shall lay the cause before the rest of the twenty-five Barons, 
and the said twenty-five Barons, together with the community of the whole 
kingdom shall distrain and distress us all the ways possible ; namely, 
by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, &c.” 

But though the Tories should remain in office the Irish State 
Church cannot be saved. Yes, the doom of that fatted harlot is 
sounded. Nothing on the Earth, or under the Earth, or around and 
above the Earth can avert the destruction which now threatens her. 
The sword of Justice which is to sever her unholy connexion with the 
State is drawn from the scabbard in which it has reposed and rusted 
too long. It has been burnished and sharpened, and is now grasped 
by the hilt by a hand which has all the force of the mightiest people in 
the world concentrated in its strength. Is the Established Protestant 
Church,—the Church of the principal Land-Lords and of about half 
a million of people, forced upon five millions of Roman Catholics, a 
grievance at all ? I contend that the moment any institution, never 
mind whether it be the most exalted or the humblest in the land, is 
proven to be obnoxious to the welfare of the community, it ought to 
be immediately uprooted and annihilated. Why should ages pass 
away before condemned nuisances are abolished, and acknowledged 
grievances repealed? Why should generations be subjected to the 
malign influences of admitted evils when those evils can be instanta¬ 
neously removed ? The Church of the parsons without congre¬ 
gations,—of the Land-Lords without bowels of compassion, — of 


254 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


conquerors, whose Statesmanship is extermination,—is doomed to 
death. The days of sectarian ascendency, religious intolerance, 
and spurious Protestantism are over in Ireland, and we are even 
now on the threshold of a new political era, which is to usher in 
peace and freedom, education and prosperity for one of the most 
gifted and most cruelly-treated races of mankind. But the condemned 
criminal will die hard. The ecclesiastical stiumpet has numeious 
powerful friends. She has both the will and the power to bribe and 
corrupt. We must, therefore, take care lest the officers of Justice 
should be tampered with. We must be on our guard against a sham 
death; for the down-trodden of Ireland, England, and Scotland are 
vitally interested in the complete and final destruction of the Chuich 
of Mammon, which has prostituted the religion of Christ into an 
engine of aristocratic tyranny and working-class misery. The Iiish 
State Church clergy, who are, and always have been, the apologists 
and tools of the Irish Land-Lords, must no longer be paid out of the 
land which they helped to depopulate, or out of the industry which 
they endeavored to starve. This is the Church of the rich, maintained 
at the expense of the poor,—the Church of alien oppressors and ab¬ 
sentee Land-Lords, maintained out of the industry of a poor half- 
famished, and despised people. Nine out of every ten Irishmen, hate 
this Church as a vehicle of heresy and a symbol of slavery. There¬ 
fore, this Church of the Land-Lords, the sluggards, and the horse¬ 
leeches of Irish labor must and shall be speedily abolished, as the 
first step towards the discharge of that immense debt which England 
owes to Ireland for seven hundred years of unparalleled oppiession. 
This is the hour. Down with the Irish State Church ! Down with 
the ecclesiastic harlot kept by the Irish Land-Lords, but paid for by 
the Irish people ! England owes an immense debt to Ireland, and, as 
a first instalment, the Parliament will make the Irish people a present 
of the extorted endowments of the Irish State Church, subject to the 
salaries for life of the present incumbents. 

With the expectation that I shall have the pleasure of finding you 
in your proper place in the new Ministr}% 

I am, dear Sir, &c., &c., 

John Scott. 


LETTER X YI. 


The Right Hon. B. Disraeli, Prime 
Minister of Britain. 


Belfast, 59, Victoria Terrace, 
April 7 th, 1868. 


Dear Sir, —You are, indeed, unquestionably one of the most curious 
and versatile Political Reformers of your time. You have taken up 
many parts, and you have made some sensation in them all. You 
have been a political novelist and pamphleteer, an epic poet, a Revolu¬ 
tionary Reformer, an advocate for the Ballot, and for the separation 
of Church and State, a Free Trader, a Protectionist, the sycophant and 
then the sarcastic assailant of Sir Robert Peel, then a Free Trader 
once more, the protege <oi Joseph Hume, and the head of the Tory party. 
All this, and much more, you have been. But all this was not nearly 



POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


255 


sufficient for you, wlio happens to be, certainly, one of our most pro¬ 
tean of politicians. So we now find you, in the sear and yellow leaf 
ol your very curious and wonderful career, taking up a new, and, in 
many respects, the most arduous role in which you have ever attempted 
to amuse or humbug your patrons and admirers. Your new role is 
that of “ Defender of the Faith.” The first Defender of the Faith was 
Henry the. Eighth ; you are the last or the latest. Henry the Eighth, 
with the aid ot Sir Thomas More, wrote a book against Martin Luther 
and the “ Deformation.” The Pope was so pleased with this treatise, 
that he bestowed the high and sacred title of Defender of the Faith 
upon its supposed author. But the Pope failed to foresee that Henry 
in a very short time, would become one of the deadliest enemies of 
that Church which he had volunteered to champion. Your title to the 
appellation bestowed by the Pope upon the sacrilegious despoiler of the 
abbey lands, consists in a fierce Eo-Popery letter which you wrote to 
an obscure artificial noble of Tory politics, a speech which you deli¬ 
vered during the discussion of Mr. Gladstone’s Besolutions and of 
another letter which you wrote to a Buckinghamshire parson, who 
took the liberty of asking you what you meant by saying that “the 
High Church Kitualists had long been in secret combination, and were 
now in open confederacy with Irish Romanists, for the destruction of 
the union between Church and State.” You replied to this letter; 
but the reverend parson must be quite as much at a loss to know your 
meaning after perusing your reply, as he was before. In fact, you eat 
up your own words, or, which is the same thing, you explain them 
away in such a manner as to deprive them of any meaning. The fact 
is, that, no one knows where to find the new Defender of the Faith. 
A man may paint the chameleon, the borealis lights, catch and im¬ 
prison Proteus himself; but no human ingenuity can hold you to your 
pledges or assertions, or attach any definite meaning to the language 
which you use, in the event of your finding it convenient to forget that 
you ever did use it. It maybe that, under the influence of the spiritual 
or other stimulants, you did declare that the High Church Ritualists 
and Roman Catholics w r ere in league to destroy the connexion between 
Church and State. Since then, however, you have had time to cool down 
to a more natural and less intemperate view of the subject. Upon second 
thoughts, you came to the conclusion that the High Church party was 
very influential, and that there could not well be a more foolish policy 
than that which would offend them. Y r ou, therefore, in your letter to 
Mr. Baker, the Buckinghamshire parson, who asked you for an expla¬ 
nation- of your views, declare that you have the highest respect for 
“ the High Church party.” “I believe,” you continue, “there is no 
body of men in this country to which we have been more indebted, 
from the days of Queen Anne to the days of Queen Victoria, for the 
maintenance of the orthodox faith.” Here we mark the zeal and the 
piety of the new Defender of the Faith. Your letter itself is dated 
“ Maundy-Thursday,” 1868,*—a cunning compliance with the customs 
of the High Churchmen which ought to go a long way towards the 


* Maundy-Tliursday,—the Thursday before Easter,—from the maunds or baskets 
that contained the gifts which the King was accustomed to distribute among a 
certain number of poor persons on that day,—or from the new and great ( mandate ) 
commandment which Jesus Christ gave on that day,— namely, “ That we should 
love one another.” 


256 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


allaying or their resentment, although you have charged them with 
being parties to a wicked conspiracy against the liberties of their 
countrymen. Then you compliment them upon having maintained the 
“ orthodox faith.” Doubtless you are a capital judge of orthodoxy; 
and there can be no doubt that the man who insinuates in his life of 
Lord George Bentinck that Christians are as much indebted lor their 
redemption to Judas as to Jesus, —to the traitor as well as to the 
Crucified One,—is an eminently fit and proper person to compliment 
a great pious party upon their solemn services to the cause of Christi¬ 
anity. It is a particularly lucky thing for you that the days of coarse 
vituperation are past, or you would be accused in the bluntest manner 
of deliberately falsifying history when you make assertions of this 
kind respecting the maintenance of the orthodox faith. The High 
Church party were notorious in Queen Anne’s time, and afterwards 
for the violence with which they always attacked the principles of the 
Revolution. 

Having buttered, and, as you doubtless believe, appeased the anger 
of the High Church party, as new Defender of the Faith, you go on to 
inform the Rev. Mr. Baker, of Addington, Bucks, as to what you 
meant when you spoke of “ the extreme faction in the Church that do 
not conceal tlieir ambition to destroy the connexion between Church 
and State. Now, you know well that the phrase “ extreme faction” 
is extremely vague. It may apply to High Church, or to Low Church, 
or to Broad Church, or to Narrow Church; and, therefore, taken 
without its connexion with your speech on Mr. Gladstone’s Resolu¬ 
tions, it cannot give offence to any of the parties into which the reli¬ 
gious society called the Established Church is divided. You are 
quite right in complimenting the High Church, and you would be 
equally right in complimenting the Low Church. Indeed, you do 
in this very letter, hand a large slice of your rhetorical butter to the 
Low Church party. For Low Churchmen as v r ell as High Church¬ 
men have votes, and can contribute to the making or to the marring 
of a Cabinet. But what do you care for either High Church or Low 
Church, though in your present difficult part of Defender of the Faith 
you are prepared to pander to the basest of sectarian prejudices, 
and to inflame the most fiendish animosities, provided that by so 
doing you can maintain your own place, and defeat Mr. Gladstone ? 
The Church of England, however, will do v r ell to be on its guard 
against its new Defender. You are, no doubt, a sincere believer in 
the Thirty-nine Articles ; but all these, when weighed against the 
highest office under the Crown, run the risk of having to kick the 
beam. It must have been for the very silliest of the stupid party that 
your late farrago of falsehood and sham patriotism has been stuck 
together. It w r as perfectly absurd for you to pretend that you had 
“ reason to believe” that such combinations and plots as you described 
had any existence beyond the bounds of your own fertile imagination, 
or beyond the words in which your paltry concoctions were put forth. 
A party in the Church, no doubt, would like to possess the revenues 
and the power of the Establishment without any State control; but 
that such a party is in alliance with Roman Catholic priests, is a mere 
fiction, and one that might have been thought too silly for an expert 
novelist to invent if days of dotage had not supervened. Most people 
would gladly treat your unworthy pranks with simple laughter at their 
mountebank character, but things which might have been passed over 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


257 


while you were fighting your way to the Premiership, become serious 
offences when committed under the full responsibilities of position and 
power. You may disgrace yourself as much as you please with the 
harlequin changes of your histrionic career. I am sorry that you have 
no higher ambition, no keener sense of duty, or even better taste, but 
your personal reputation is your own affair. As Premier, however, 
you have duties to the Empire,—and you are not entitled to discredit 
the office of First Minister of the Crown by mingling charlatanry and 
chicanery in order to make up a policy which it passes the power of 
ridicule to laugh at, or of scorn sufficiently to despise. 

Sincere men may fancy that disestablishing the Irish Church ought 
to be resisted on the ground that such action would place the English 
Establishment in peril, but they forget with you that there is some¬ 
thing higher and more sacred than the position of any Establishment, 
and that is Justice and Truth. The real ground for objecting to the 
Irish Church as it stands is, that it violates all principles of civil and 
political liberty. I yield to none in disapproval of what I deem to be 
defects in Roman Catholicism, but if Protestants are to overcome them, 
they must employ weapons worthy of their cause. To rob a Nation of 
Roman Catholics in support of a Church they detest, is an action that 
can have no support from morality, or from true political principles of 
any kind. To remove so flagrant an outrage and grievance is a duty 
which Churchmen may feel as well as Dissenters, and in which the best 
friends of the English Establishment may cordially join. The bishops 
and clergy of the English Church must determine by their conduct at 
this crisis whether their hold over public opinion is to be strengthened 
or weakened. The popular mind is thoroughly made up on the ques¬ 
tion, and to raise cries that the Church is in danger when nobody 
thinks of assailing it, is the way to promote an antagonism which 
ecclesiastics, in common prudence, ought to avoid. If we look a little 
backward in our history, we shall find that when the Church has 
really been in danger, it lias come from the sort of action which you 
are now apparently so very anxious to stimulate. When a large pro¬ 
portion of the Bishops and clergy,—the High Church party, which 
you commend,—made a desperate and deliberate onslaught upon civil 
and religious liberty; when damaging doctrines of slavish obedience 
w r ere declared from the pulpit, affirmed in Convocation, and supported 
by Bishops in Parliament; when ecclesiastical intolerance made bitter 
war against dissent, and urged mobs to attack the houses of Dissenters, 
and burn their chapels, a counter movement very naturally appeared, 
and the Church Establishment was assailed by enemies who avowed 
their desire to pull it down. Of late years these quarrels have sub¬ 
sided. Churchmen and Dissenters have been willing to recognize each 
other’s merits, and the position of the Establishment has been mate¬ 
rially strengthened by the progress of liberality within it as well as 
without. You invite the Church to a suicidal course. Is this one of 
your deep designs ? You would place it in distinct opposition to the 
will of the majority and to the tendencies of the age. That you will 
find adherents I do* not doubt; but the more intelligent of the clergy,— 
I mean those who can most completely throw aside ecclesiastical pre¬ 
judices, and take a. calm view of the situation, will not, for any ulteiioi 
consideration, support a palpable and obvious wrong. In a free coun¬ 
try, all institutions, whether civil or ecclesiastical, must rest upon 
opinion. The Church cannot be in danger so long as the people feel 


258 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


that it is a useful institution fairly expressing their average belief, and 
doing its duty as a religious Society. Any attempt to give it a fictitious 
strength by appeals to Coronation Oaths, Acts of Parliament, and long 
established custom, must be a mistake at a time when popular principles 
are in the ascendant, and when merit, and not prescription, will be 
regarded as the true test by which all things are to be judged. 

Your conduct places the House of Commons in a position of grave 
responsibility. The Liberals cannot honestly allow a Government to 
continue in office upon the principles you have laid down. If you had 
merely avoided present action or immediate decision on the Irish 
Church question, there would have been no special ground for attack ; 
but an attempt to rule the country upon the High Church principles 
of Queen Anne’s time is an insult as well as an absurdity. Of course, 
it will fail, because Natural Laws are against it. You might as well 
try to bring back the Megatherium as to revive the extinct politics 
you profess to believe in; but, in common decency, Parliament can¬ 
not allow the attempt to be made, and I should fancy that some of 
your party,—Lord Stanley, for example, and those that may be led 
by the new Marquis of Salisbury,— will not permit themselves to be 
the ignominious victims of your clumsy conjuring attempts. There is 
some gossip afloat about your having led the Queen to be afraid that 
her Coronation Oath binds her to sustain the Irish Church; but it 
would be quite contrary to the whole spirit of her Majesty’s career to 
allow such illogical conclusions and insane scruples of this sort to 
stand for a single moment between the Crown and the people. The 
Queen has never been the pupil of fanatical Protestants. So far as 
her theological views are known, they incline in a more liberal direc¬ 
tion ; and whether or not she looks with anxiety at the sturdy develop¬ 
ment of democratic ideas, she is too wise to place herself in a false 
position, and to exhibit limited monarchy in an unfavorable light just 
when it is most desirable to show its perfect adaptation to an improved 
Constitution and to an extension of popular power. It is said that 
you do not intend to go out of office, if, as must be the case, you are 
again defeated on the Irish Church question. It is advisable, I admit, 
that you should be made to finish the Reform Bill before you are 
turned adrift, but it is not desirable that you should hold office for 
the purpose of exercising patronage, enjoying emoluments, and in¬ 
fluencing the course of the general elections which ought to take place 
as soon as possible. 

At the very commencement, this discussion brought you and your 
Government into disgrace ; it shattered the reputation of Lord Stanley, 
who displayed a shuffling evasive spirit below the dignity of a Statesman, 
and beneath the honor of a public man, and placed your great rival Mr. 
Gladstone in a higher position than he ever attained before. Either 
the Irish Church Establishment ought to be defended upon the ground 
of its merits and utility, or condemned as an apparatus which fails 
both theologically and politically to realize a beneficial result. You 
who never had any high sense of political honor or veracity, shouted 
a cry in which no one supposed you sincere. Lord Stanley carefully 
abstained from following his chief in this part of the warfare, and 
framed an amendment to shuffle off a decision without pledging him¬ 
self to uphold the Irish Church on future occasions. Such conduct on 
the part of the chief of the Cabinet and his principal assistant disgusts 
honest men on both sides. You are frequently accustomed to make 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


259 


very light of grave difficulties from which ordinary Politicians carefully 
shrink. You have never stuck at common trifles during your long 
political career. For you, however, of all public men, to undertake to 
defend the Irish State Church, is the boldest, and, I must add, the 
most unscrupulous of your many bold and unscrupulous proceedings. 
You have yourself been the most bitter ot all the assailants of this 
Establishment. You have said more against it than Mr. Gladstone 
ever did. You do not deny that you deliberately declared it to be 
an alien Church, and that you also maintained, only a few months 
before you became one of the Leaders 01 the Tory party, the duty of 
British Statesmen to be, to effect in Ireland by legislation all that a 
revolution would effect by force. It is a very small excuse that all 
this was said some thirty-four years ago. You were then a man of 
mature years. You had been in Parliament se'veial Sessions, and 
long before you entered Parliament you had, as your writings show, 
been considering Irish questions. You were, when you made these 
emphatic enunciations, avowedly teaching a younger generation whom 
you did not wish to be altogether demoralized by the temporizing ex¬ 
pedients of such Statesmen as Lord Aberdeen, Sir James Graham, and 
Sir Robert Peel. More than this. When lately reminded of the 
remarks you had made in former days on this question, though you 
declared that they were somewhat rhetorically conceived and expressed, 
vou did not repudiate them, but acknowledged on your “ historical 
conscience” that they were substantially true. In all your speeches 
and writings for more than a generation you had steadily maintained 
that the Roman Catholics were the natural allies of the Tory party, 
and that it was the height of folly and a proof of short-sightedness,— 
in men who called themselves Conservative Statesmen, to drive into 
the opposite ranks a great body of people by principles so thorough y 
Conservative. For years after years, both m and out of Parliament,— 
in season as well as out of season,—you have been coquetting for the 
support of the Irish Roman Catholic Members. You did so when, 
with your late friend Lord George Bentinck, you first took your 
seat on the front Opposition bench. You did so even this Session 
just after you became Prime Minister of Britain. You made a very 
bold and barefaced bid for their support, indeed, by proposing to 
Charter and Endow the Catholic University, and by hinting,—though 
rather obscurely,—at some extensive schemes for raising the status 
of the Catholic Clergy, only requiring some time to consider and 
mature Such are your acknowledged antecedents, though you ar? 
now constrained by party exigencies to oppose the disestablishment 
and disendowment of the Irish State Church. No person of ordi¬ 
nary intelligence can doubt, that if you were allowed to act on your 
own individual convictions you would have cordially supported Mr. 
qSS great propositions. Your party have however tied 
vou hand and foot to the stake. You must fight on this ground. It 
is the mie condition of the allegiance of your Tory followers. Never 
was any man calling himself a Statesman placed m a “T ore 

miliatin"_in a more unenviable position. You have deliberate y 

Smt vour eyes to the inevitable events of the future. But you are 

not a man to hesitate at any course of political conduct if only you 
not a man 10 j This has always been the one 

prevaUingTbject of your insatiable ambition. To the majority of our 
public men the nefarious work which you have undertaken this Session 


R 


260 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


would, indeed, be more horrifying than any form of punishment ima¬ 
ginable. No place nor pension that either Monarchs, Senates, or 
Governments could bestow, would be to conscientious men comparable 
to sacrificing the most deliberately expressed convictions,—and espe¬ 
cially at the present great political crisis,—with the momentous 
interests of this great Empire at stake,—elaborately endeavoring to 
make the worse appear the better cause. This task, however, you 
have undertaken, and I have no doubt you will continue to perform it 
in your own peculiar fashion. As far as the Session has gone, you 
have been equal to each occasion,—that is, you have been thoroughly 
yourself. But you have not as yet, even with all your arrogant auda¬ 
city, once presumed to maintain or argue that the Irish State Church 
is a good or a gracious institution as it now stands. Early impres¬ 
sions are generally lasting impressions. Intelligence and wisdom are 
needed by all men in all circumstances. Wisdom is needed to avert 
unnecessary evils ; it is needed to sustain the Statesman under una¬ 
voidable trials,—to make proper allowance for the feelings and prin¬ 
ciples of others,—and, finally, wisdom to promote required reforms,— 
the reforms and improvements which the progress of knowledge point 
out as necessary. 

If you can think that the repudiation of your recent conduct can 
proceed only from opponents and enemies you have more to learn 
respecting humanity in general; and you have also much more to 
learn respecting yourself. For the reproach has been often uttered 
lately, and is widely believed true, that you are sorely afflicted with 
extreme selfishness,—with a shameless love of office,—that your main 
maxim is to secure your own interests; and men whose principles 
rise up against the dogma that exclusive self-interest can be the true 
or rightful spring of high official life, condemn you everywhere. Is 
not deep reproach inseparable from that course of conduct which you 
have pursued since you became Prime Minister of Britain ? Let 
arguments in defence of your political actions be refined to the utmost, 
the pollution of extreme selfishness cannot be purged from your late 
deeds. Men of clear observation will still say, that your political play¬ 
ing is but a cunning form of self-seeking, and not high-toned States¬ 
manship, that it despoils office of its prerogative, and quenches in 
deep and gloomy darkness the national confidence,—the developing 
and securing of which should be the constant aim of public men. 
Your absurd elocution and ridiculous rhetoric on the occasion of the 
recent Irish Church debate suggested very general doubts as to the 
source of your excitement on that remarkable occasion, though, of 
course, it w r as only an instance of vanity intoxicated by success. You 
have not resigned. Defeated on the Irish Church question by a large 
majority (60), you nevertheless remain Premier."' It is not your 

* The following is a summary of some of the vital party divisions of tho last 30 
years:—On August 24, 1841, a vote of want of confidence in Lord Melbourne’s 
Government was carried by 91 in a house of 634 members; on June 8, 1846, Sir 
Kobert Peel’s Ministry was defeated by a majority of 76 in a house of 516 members ; 
on February 20, 1851, Lord John Eussell tendered his resignation on being defeated 
by a majority of 48 in a house of 157 members. Twelve months later Lord John 
Eussell was defeated, on the militia question, by 11 in a house of 226 members. 
The Tory Budget of 1852 was rejected by 19 in a house numbering 596, Lord Aber¬ 
deen’s Government was driven from power in January, 1855, by a majority of 157 
in a house of 458. In March, 1857, Lord Palmerston’s Chinese policy was condemned 
by a majority of 16 in a house of 515 members. A year later there was an adverse 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


261 


intention to abandon your post, neither will you dissolve Parliament. 
You will renew and protract the battle of the Irish Church Establish¬ 
ment after the holidays, and go to the country at the end ol the 
Session, when a General Election must necessarily take place under 
the New Reform Acts. What hope you entertain of winning a ma¬ 
jority at the hustings I cannot conceive, unless it arises from an 
expectation dictated by the desire, that the Protestantism of the whole 
Nation will be alarmed and interpose between you and your political 
rivals. No one, however, can know better than yourself that, to use 
plain terms, the British people will not stand any moie tuning. ie 
Nation appears determined that a series of important questions shall 
be at last lifted out of the slough of talk into the atmosphere of action. 
Such is the feeling of the Liberals, and especially of the Statesmen 
who are charged with these great questions. The Nation is now moye 

anxious about measures than about men. , 

In concluding this, my last letter to you for the present, I seriously 
recommend to you to study the questions—What is the pervading 
spirit, and what are the dominant tendencies of our age ? What aw 
its political means, and whither its political mission ? In the careful 
investigation of these questions, you will soon discovei , 

age of freedom both in thought and action,—that it is an age in which 
men are being liberated from the despotism of forms based on supposi¬ 
tions, from the serfdom of caste, from the authority of prelates and 
priests, and from the tyranny of Kings, Queens, and every other grade 
of State Idols;—that it is an age of Intellect, in which the spirit of 
discovery speeds with eagle wings from province to province ofScie 
investigation an age in which history is exhuming the long buried 
records of Empires and Races, called by her Scientific labors a ? 
the depths of death unto the heights of life ;-an age in which the 
slowly^accummulated mental treasures of all ages,—humanity s pnce- 
WheMoom from the total past,-so long in the possession only of 
a small though learned class of professed students,—is becoming th 
possession of Universal man ;-that it is pre-eminently an age in which 
Human Rights are claimed and legally granted, , , 

birth rank prestige, or precedent; an age m which invidious artmc 
distinctions' a*nd special privileges are being rapidly lost m he growing 
conviction that a natural brotherhood should mute aU races of m 
kind into one great harmonious family, with lo\e, not 101 , 

bond of union, and emulation, not coercion, as their stimulus to 

UBe fam, er dea°r n Sir, for the present released from my self-imposed task 
of being your special Teacher in the Science and Art of Politics, 

fl/irvrrrr 


majority of 19 on the Conspiracy Bill 1 ^^^^ second Derby 

1859 was rejected by 39 in a kouse ^ houg0 o{ 638 mem bers. On July 

Government was ejected by a majority nrmnqition on the Danish question by 

9, 1864, Lord Palmerston triumphed overOpposition a EusselPs Reform Bill 

a majority of 18 in a house of 613. On p * j nne 18 18(i6, the Russell 
was carried by a majority of 5 in a house o • q{ u - n & b( J uge num hering 624. 
Government was, however, defeated y J ( rec o nc p e d its sections” ; but on April 
£3 a majority of 60 over the Tory Administration on 

the Irish Church question. 


262 


THE SHARP SPEAR AND FLAMING SWORD OF 


LETTER XVII. 

Belfast, 59, Victoria Terrace, 

John S. Mill, Esq., M.P. April 27th, 1868. 

Dear Sir, —We are assured, on excellent authority, that Justice, 
being great, shall ultimately triumph. It is to he hoped such is the 
case; but no one can deny that frequently a very long time elapses 
before Justice does make itself fully known and felt. In this country, as 
regards both political and social matters, the sunshine of Justice finds 
it extremely difficult to disperse the murky fog of prejudice and con¬ 
ventionalism. Before the rankest xveed of corruption can be uprooted, 
the public mind requires being educated and prepared for the operation 
years and years before it takes place. And even when the entire Nation 
is convinced that some huge fraud and deceit has been practised upon 
them for ages, considerable time is required to reconcile the people to 
the subversion and extinction of the fraud. Such being the case, then, 
it is by no means surprising that those who advocate great and start¬ 
ling political and social changes are at first sneered and laughed at, 
until, little by little, the public mind becoming enlightened on the 
subject it never before thought worthy of consideration, tardily admits 
that the plans and projects of the Beformers are neither so visionary 
nor so impracticable as they at first appeared. At the present day 
it is the fashion to laugh at you and others who advocate the enfran¬ 
chisement of females, and the proposal is a subject for badinage, in what 
is termed “Good Society ;” and when brought before Parliament again 
will assuredly be laughed at in the House of the Common men. Never¬ 
theless, if your philosophy has not led you into a quagmire, and if 
Justice does, as I before said, ultimately triumph,—if, in short, it be 
proper, politic, and just, that women should enjoy the full rights of free 
citizenship, — why, then, rest assured Mr. Mill, that before man} 7 years 
have elapsed they will become an avowed power in the State. 

The battle of the Irish Church will commence in the House of the 
Common men this evening, and a fierce and prolonged fight may be 
confidently expected. In all legislative assemblies, an appeal to num¬ 
bers decides every question. 830 members, opposed to 270, decided 
that they should, open the Irish Church question;—that they would 
“go into committee.” The same majority will probably decide that 
“ it is expedient that the Irish Church be disestablished,” unless a 
lavish distribution of the “secret service money ” and the promised 
patronage and bribery of Peers have reversed the intentions of many 
needy and struggling members ; for so long as the necessary expenses 
of elections are what they now are, and so long as Members of Parlia¬ 
ment are not paid for their services, the “secret service money ” and 
certain members of the House of the Lords can marshal a given num¬ 
ber of the members of the House of the Common men. 

On this important point Reformers are culpably silent. There is 
hardly a voice raised in favor of the payment of those men who do the 
most important work of the State. Now, it stands in conformity with 
Justice that a Member of Parliament is as much entitled to payment 
for his labor as any other useful workman. But even honest Reformers 
shirk this most important question as if there was something in the 
idea of a Member of Parliament being paid for his services to be 
ashamed of. Yet no one thinks it shmneful in a .Judge, or a* Prime 
Minister, or a “Prince of the Blood,” being paid. Every officer in 
the Queen’s household is paid out of the pockets of the working 
classes; yet the working classes are led to believe that their own 


POLITICAL JUSTICE UNSHEATHED, ETC. 


263 


representatives ouglit not to be paid. No one thinks of serving the 
Sovereign or the aristocracy for nothing. To do these justice, they 
do not ask or expect that they should be served gratuitously. But 
the poor, silly, befooled taxpaying classes have been taught to worship 
State Idols, and to consider that noble Lords and rich men deem it a 
peculiar pleasure, and a very special honor to serve them,—the un¬ 
washed, unperfumed, multitude,—for nothing,—by way of gratitude. 
But do they do it ? Most certainly not. This supposed non-payment 
of members is a manifest falsehood,—a malignant deception. As a 
matter of fact, Members of Parliament are paid, not honestly and 
avowedly, but in a secret, and frequently dirty and dishonest way. 
Many of them are notoriously poor. Yet, inasmuch as they do the 
dirty work of the aristocracy, they are paid by being appointed to 
places in which, though the salary is good, the labor is light or next 
to nothing. Others, again, are paid by being appointed to sham 
“ Commissions” purporting to elucidate a subject preliminary to its 
being legislated upon. But generally these long, tedious and costly 
inquiries leave the subject of their investigations in a greater muddle 
and mystery than it was before. 

In addition to these indirect modes of paying Members of Parlia¬ 
ment, there is the “ Secret service money,” which the House of the 
Common men votes so readily every year, and which finds its way 
into the pockets of some of the unpaid and incorruptible gentlemen 
who do the work of the aristocracy. The fact is, that the people 
never will be masters of their own pockets until they are represented 
in the House of the Common men by honest and properly paid ser¬ 
vants. From these considerations, I hope that you will agree with 
me that Parliamentary Reform, so far from being finished, has, in the 
true signification of the term, hardly yet been commenced. 

With the fond expectation that you may be disposed to favor me 
with your view of the payment of Members, as also with your inten¬ 
tion to move for the enfranchisement of our fair sisters, and sincerely 
hoping that you shall find your proper place in the first new Ministry, 

I am, dear Sir, yours very cordially in the cause of human pro¬ 
gression, ‘ ‘ John Scott. 

[The following is Mr. Mill’s reply to the above letter] 


Blackheath Park, Kent, April 30, 18G8. 

Dear Sir, —There is much truth in many of the observations in 
your letter of the 27tli instant, but, as at present advised, I am not in 
favor of the payment of Members of Parliament by a salary from the 
State. If the remuneration w’ere of sufficient amount to be any object 
to persons capable of earning a considerable income by their abilities, 
it would be high enough to be a great temptation to a large class of 
persons as a mere pecuniary speculation j and it seems to me inex¬ 
pedient to add anything to the strong motives which already prompt 
men to seek for a seat in the Legislature as a means of personal profit. 

' It is, no doubt, a great evil that highly qualified persons should be 
prevented from serving their country in Parliament by the want of an 
independent income, and I think that when this is known to be the 
‘case with a person whom any body of electors are anxious to choose as 
their representative, it would be equally honorable to him and to them 
that they should subscribe to make an income for him during the 
years which they ask him to devote to their service. 

I am happy to hear that you are in favor of the extension of the 
Suffrage to women.-1 am, dear Sir, very sincerely yours, 

John Scott, Esq. ^ ILL * 



264 


GENERAL CONCLUDING REMARKS, &C. 


General Concluding Remarks, embracing the Means and the Modes of 

our Political and Social Progress. 


The state of society throughout the civilized world, but especially in Britain, at this 
period of the nineteenth century, must often and deeply engage the attention of 
thoughtful minds, and would form a most interesting subject of inquiry and discus¬ 
sion in the hands of one favorably endowed and placed, both for viewing life in its 
various aspects and for entering on the investigation, in that calm, careful, and wise 
manner which should enable him to take a just view of i^s political state, social and 
domestic relations, apart from his own immediate connexion with them. Such a 
view would be retrospective also ; for it would involve a history of progress ; and it 
would be most interesting to trace the influence of political events and popular 
commotions,—of commercial transactions,—and of scientific discoveries,—and 
especially of moral and educational movements, on the social and domestic manners 
and habits of the present age. The subject accordingly has not been altogether 
neglected; many lively remarks and profound views connected with it are to be 
found in the writings of modern essayists, politicians, poets, and historians ; while 
in some of the popular works of fiction we have lively and often faithful impression* 
taken off, from the prominent features of our age, with respect to its political, social, 
and domestic condition, and bold sketches made of the scenes and circumstances in 
which its faults and follies, its intelligence and virtues, stand out on the surface of 
life. Nor has the subject been left to grave iuquiry or to fictitious narrative only ; 
our sense of the ludicrous is enlisted every week, by both pencil and pen, for the 
special purpose of stimulating and directing attention to the passing scenes of life,— 
to its selfishness and whims, to its follies and inconsistencies, as they shift and show 
themselves in our rapidly-advancing course of political progress. Still, as a whole, 
the subject remains almost untouched. And there is one portion, or rather one 
particular view of that whole, which involves much importance, and which may be 
brought before us by means of the following questions : —What are the duties and 
the defects of political, social, and domestic life among us ? In other words, how do 
we act out the great liberal and just principles by which we profess to be governed t 
Do we thoroughly comprehend the duties and defects of political, social, and domestic 
life in our own Nation and age ? The coloring of our false virtues tarnish our real 
ones. Polite manners are substituted by us for real duties ; fine liberal sentiments 
for good actions. The benefits, the duties, and the dangers of modern political and 
social life, arise chiefly out of the increased power which men possess of acting on 
each other for good or for evil. In past ages, men influenced each other chiefly 
through the medium of wealth, social station, artificial rank, backed up and sup¬ 
ported by physical force ; but in the course of our progress into the present period 
of our civilization, new sources of influence have been developed, through circum¬ 
stances which have brought each class of society into contact, and so facilitated 
personal and mental intercourse, as to have established a Free Trade in Knowledge , 
Appreciations, and Opinions, between the different grades of society. The same 
circumstances have developed and cherished the natural tendency in man to combine 
for particular purposes,—a tendency which was formerly called into action with diffi¬ 
culty, and only by urgent circumstances, but when exerted, was ever a powerful 
engine for the attainment of the most important ends. 



GENERAL CONCLUDING REMARKS, &C. 


265 


The means of influencing society are, indeed, through the general and rapid 
diffusion of knowledge, new appreciations, and feelings, almost unlimited at the 
present day. Opinions, facts, and discoveries, which formerly enlightened and in¬ 
fluenced small local societies only, or that slowly made their way through individual 
minds scattered over the world at large, and holding little communication with each 
other, are now carried with inconceivable rapidity from one end of the globe to the 
other,—moving and acting on large bodies of men wholly unconnected by position 
or circumstances,—acting on popular Representatives and official Leaders, in 
proportion as they are susceptible of being impressed with true convictions. A 
political movement, a new thought, a just demand emanating from some one great 
social center, as from London, for instance, and arising probably in the mind of 
some solitary individual, is transmitted in a few hours to numerous localities over 
the wide extent of our home Empire, and in a few more hours, days, weeks, or 
months, to foreign and distant shores. Education, printing, postage, steam, 
electricity, mechanism, developed mind, all lend their aid to multiply and promote 
the rapid circulation of thought. An idea, or principle, a scientific discovery, a 
mechanical or chemical improvement, or a matter of fact, is transmitted over-night 
to the public journals, and the following morning has communicated itself to 
thousands of minds, whose intellectual faculties and moral energies are simulta¬ 
neously aroused and stimulated by its influence. The impression actually left on 
each mind in this way is not, however, permanent, nor is society at large moved 
by it, unless it is renewed often enough to make a lodgment, and to impart that 
conviction of general sympathy which alone encourages us to action, or unless the 
latent spark so communicated should happen to light upon some mind capable 
both of disengaging it, and of kindling with the flame thus caught, the minds of 
others. To both these modes of influencing society, the cheapness, ease, and con¬ 
tinuousness of literary communication greatly contribute. Day after day, year after 
year, the same idea, principle, or demand is presented to the mind, by means of 
public journals, reviews, and other notices, until it has become diffused among 
millions of individual minds, and having gradually mixed itself up with their 
thoughts, appreciations, feelings, and interests,'is appropriated as their own, and 
is at length expressed and recognized as public opinion : or if destined to a more 
immediate influence, is communicated by the mind which originated, or the kin¬ 
dred intelligence which received it, to some popular assembly,—to the House of 
the Common men, or to the Chamber of the Lords, where the impression is deepened 
by sympathy, and the sentiment is transmitted by various means and methods,— 
with all the increased weight of numbers, to influence similar masses of intelligent 
beings. Owing to this rapid circulation of thought, the minds of individuals who 
have°iio sort of personal connexion are unfolded to each other, and their mutual 
eources of strength made known, so that a facility of action is afforded to those 
combinations for particular purposes, which form a remarkable feature of our age. 
By their means, expression and weight are given to the thoughts and interests of that 
part of the community who form a minority in point of wealth and artificial power, 
but very often a majority in point of numbers and intelligence; and thus by the 
united strength of some small individual means, the rights of every class and 
grade in society come to be recognized, and their claims forced on the notice of 
their fellow-men. At an early stage of civilization these combinations seem to 
have been essential to the preservation of some of the very commonest rights of 
humanity Afterwards, when those rights were more generally recognized, the spirit 
which called them forth slumbered, except when some new and intolerable evil 
roused the fears and the intelligence of the age to this means of self-protection. 
Toward" the close of the last century combinations were again forced on mankind 


266 


GENERAL CONCLUDING EEMARKS, &C. 


to repel evils which were ancient, indeed, but which the growing intelligence of 
Nations refused any longer to endure. At the present day they are not only a • 
source of political power extending to the lowest ranks, but they form also the 
fashionable momentum of society. We have combinations for the promotion of 
political and pious purposes, combinations of persons of rank, social station, and 
forms of faith, the most different, or even opposed to each other, uniting in one 
vast object of Justice, and minds long divided, are brought together by the healing 
influence of common sympathy and the determination to remove sources of op¬ 
pression,—combinations for charities, for education, for literary and scientific ends, 
and for everything connected with the public welfare and conveniencecombinations 
for amusements, and finally, as a cross division, combinations for party purposes 
and also to promote the selfish ends of particular classes. Such a rapid circulation 
of thought, and such a connexion with the masses of our fellow-men, seem to involve 
new and growing responsibilities, and to complicate our duties, inasmuch as they 
increase, to an almost fearful extent, the social influences of mankind. Bitter and 
idle words, falsehoods uttered heedlessly, or to serve some private purpose at a 
public meeting, no longer sink into oblivion, or remain with the circle of hearers to 
which they were addressed,—they go forth with the speed of steam, or of air, to 
corrode and embitter, to mislead or deceive, thousands of other minds; when by 
him probably who uttered them, they are remembered no more. But this is not 
all; the evil desires, the false impressions, and the bad principles, contained in 
books, which the expense of publication and the difficulty of transmission formerly 
confined to a small number of readers, are now diffused among the mass of the popu¬ 
lation,—among the young, the ignorant, and the idle of mankind. So that in both 
ways a new responsibility has arisen, and is laid on the speakers and writers,—especi¬ 
ally on the popular writers,—of the'present day, who thus enter into communication 
with the public mind, and exert over their fellow-men of every class, age, and de¬ 
gree, a real and powerful influence for good or for evil. And if the relations between 
mankind at large have been so much extended and strengthened by the various and 
newly-developed means of communication which the present period of general 
advancement presents, the habits and manners of social and domestic life have been 
little less influenced by the same causes. No longer confined to the narrow circle 
in which we may have been born, or bound through professional or local circum¬ 
stances by the laws of a particular coterie, our minds have freer intercourse, and are 
less exposed to the uncontrolled dominion of those prejudices which belong to the 
sect or party with whom we may happen to be connected. Under these circum¬ 
stances, we should be led to expect a great improvement in the general tenor of our 
social and domestic life at the present day ; and accordingly, in comparing it with 
the records, oral and written, even of the early part of this nineteenth century, wo 
do find that a much higher tone of intellectual and moral development prevails 
among us. Still it is necessary that we should keep the questions in view,—“ What 
are the principal duties and defects of our political, social, and domestic life at the 
present period ? How do we act out the great liberal and just principles by which 
we profess to be governed” ? 








* 9 I ' ^ s 3 9 . » - , 

*c- v ' -iP ^'^L'', % v ^ 

' '* %S :M£- W *j§^* * 

\ (VWt?////, * . z <« 

\V </> 




> g5 ^ 

& ^-, * 

cc* ry A- 

% *" 

^ A 

$& A. r ' '<A (A * 

IV-'J; ° ^>V 

Su?/- -A / ' z 

- A V V ° 

** I c S < \ 

<35 * * S a\ , \ l « * . 0 

' ^ sN * J&rlf//?^ + 


C <\' '<p s -vV \ V CL*^ ' 4 

* <V ‘>. > ^ ^ oV % 

^ «S c5 -4 c. v * 

'*'■*"./ ..... V" 

1-^ ' yp* 1 C> 0 * ^ * 

'r’t. *» # \\i///sO?„ . <y rt \ e v Aill-^ * *r 

* 

> . . >■ ^? 

^ ^ ^ 

**■ *- 




A* A 'J ^ i ^'»kO ? \^* r *C^ ^ 

^ .'•• ',, C- N 0 .'•■' > 

a* +<* .<.. - ■# 



* A A 1 .' * 

/> ,<V 


V' ,^x 


v v . 


V> "' W 

* v? vf* *> W 

-A a' > 

y 0 « X * A «j << \ ' 1B 

'o .o“ c 0 N f * * v* *,, 


' s s 

■<. <A ♦ 

° •%* ^ “ 

“ ,< 'V * 1 

V A ^ 

. S ,\ O * 



: x° 


<x v 
o 0 X 


a 0 ° 


« 0 


/ 

/■ 

{':> 


<* 


r > H 0 ' \ 

// C v 

V 





^ 0 /• 


-V, 


o ' r r J-*- Y* & f* 

At. l s> o. • 

0^* L /y j l? V - /^ 

c*v t, r t- 1 o n 0 . c> 

- % *"'V 

->*. ,4^' *' f +~ T 








































„V> > 

5 * ^ J v \ s " '\ 

,.0 c“ N c *, ■% ** ,# X .»' ' ■ 

° o x = ^ 3i- * <*- v 

\° °xr. : 

v .0 J 


* 'a ^ 





%. 4 0 * * A 0 ' 0 N c - - A 

♦ °o o 0 ' *+ 

•y 6 O r\ ' >,\iuL ^ *f J L 

* o o N * ^ > 



> v 

P- -» UKS.V 7 T/ — 

*> 
o 

■ 1 '*>°'o- * 

^ / 



g , -\ * A) 

o> s'"' 


»" ^ <C 

X . c*v * «S » «* .<^ X 




r. -Pv / 

« % V 


r a' xV ^ 



O y 0 o X * i 


* ☆ 


p , sr^'r/ZIW i& *v 

^ * v. .r ^ 

psJ <->-, r ' J ~ * 0. <P_ t~ ■ 1 X fsj 

* • 1 '• 0* O " ',% ’ N 0 V * '* >V V' 

»-*' ^ ^ % 4. V*v ;'• *- ^ * 

o ^ cO o £=dfflllfc^ - </>_ -v\ fCv\ %<< f/n © 

A^ / >‘- C WM\F * 

\a\ . v « , V ' 0 ’ ^ >' 0 N C , ^ * J * * S S a\\ , V . . , '\/ " * *“ 



p <A 

; ^ v ‘V ; J 

r> * 




< 'T, " ^ 

- ^ rf. 


. r W.wr > V 

,p i. o a 0 O, v 'f* 

'•o, ^'"’‘/ 1 '' /f ,t' , ’° v' 

<3 5) * x Ifxp'Sfck. ^ ^ - *• ^ ^ * 

%i/K~c % ,<■ :mm'~ %.^ ;«//!», 




» 


v ^ 

« A 1S' v <« eMDfo*. s -V ^ . r 

«, ^ * 

2 If % z 

• v ''/\«''; >yop > '\/y ■ -■ •S^'.y^yi 





s 0o -<. 

/ 

* , ,'%> '* 5 K 0 ’ \^ 

/y v ^ o /• 

l/^Sfcs ' -P . ~ »- c> * 



// G‘ V y. ’ u /• 

^ * %'a sA' ^ r .^1^#A V L '%> 
































